Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY OF WALES, COLLEGE OF CARDIFF BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

IMPERIAL COLLEGE BILL [Lords]

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BREDERO (BON ACCORD CENTRE, ABERDEEN) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

HIGHLAND REGION (LOCHINVER HARBOUR) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Social Security Reform

Mr. Bill Michie:: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the results of the implementation of the recent social security changes.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): The reforms have helped us to provide extra help for families with children, improve incentives to work, and make the system simpler and easier to understand. Reports from local offices in my Department indicate that the vast majority of cases were reassessed on time, and the new income support scheme is proving easier to administer. On the limited evidence available, the position in most local authorities appears to be similar. We have made it clear that we will continue to monitor the effects of the changes.

Mr. Michie: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. He mentioned the limited information available. I remind him of my prediction on 2 November 1987, at column 687, when I said that there would be hardship and asked for a report in 1988 on the effect of the legislation, bearing in mind that many of our constituents have lost out on housing benefit when they receive a fairly modest private pension. They have also lost out on certain

Government training schemes. Therefore, will the Minister not carry out a limited survey, but come back to the House with the real results of the legislation?

Mr. Moore: As I said, we shall continue to monitor the situation carefully, but the Government reacted very quickly with the substantive changes that were announced on 27 April in areas that were causing clear hardship. 'The changes affect 8·5 million people, and overall they are settling in very successfully.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will he give publicity to the fact, that delays in paying family credit are not due to the local DHSS offices, which have to carry most of the flak from people waiting for family credit?

Mr. Moore: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point. The initial stages of the introduction of family credit meant that processing the claims took between five and six weeks on average. That has improved: 243,000 family credit claims are now in payment, 72,000 claims are pending, and the aim in future is to clear claims within 18 working days. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that a help desk facility has now been made available for local offices to contact the family credit unit in North Fylde with regard to those who complain of financial hardship while awaiting an award of family credit. My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and I am delighted to be able to make that announcement.

Mr. Orme: Can the Secretary of State explain why people on industrial injury benefit and invalidity benefit have suffered so severely under these changes? Cuts of £10, £20 and £25 a week have been made in their benefits through loss in housing benefit. What is the reason for that, and what is the Secretary of State doing about it?

Mr. Moore: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the changes that were announced on 27 April, which took into account people above the income support level who had not had transitional protection. In most cases, the schemes to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring are discretionary ones implemented by local authorities. The changes have taken account of the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. Such people should be helped by the changes that were announced on 27 April.

Mr. Madel: In view of the time that it takes for people to receive family credit, does my right hon. Friend agree that local housing authorities should be patient and sensitive about rent arrears caused by an absence of family credit?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has raised a constituency case with me, but he makes a good general point. Local authorities are required to take notional account of family credit. The five to six-week delay in processing at the start of the scheme has created some difficulties, but we have set up a central unit at North Fylde to assist local offices, and it should help considerably.

Mrs. Beckett: In his continued monitoring, will the Secretary of State take account of the fact that the rules, which allow only the offer of loans to the most desperate and destitute, simply add insult to injury? When his officers


meet representatives of homeless organisations later this week, will he undertake urgently to review the balance between loans and grants?

Mr. Moore: No. We will look carefully, as we said we would, at the overall workings of the social fund. I hope that the detailed June figures will be available by the end of this week or the beginning of next week and placed in the Library, but it might be helpful for the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members to be reminded that loans generally are running at above 71 per cent. of the forecast profile and grants are running at about 32 per cent. In other words, the overall expenditure is about 59 per cent. of profile, which is nothing like the appalling suggestions that the Opposition made about the scheme. The overall figures are well within the cash forecast profile.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend nevertheless accept that there are still many cases of genuine hardship? Will he assure the House that the monitoring will be careful? Will he examine most thoroughly the dossier of cases that I am sending him today involving some of my constituents?

Mr. Moore: Of course. I shall look with pleasure at the cases.

Mr. Bill Michie: With pleasure!

Mr. Moore: I look with pleasure on the opportunity that I might have to help an hon. Member who, like Opposition Members, tries to help his constituents. I shall, of course, monitor the situation carefully. I remind the House, however, that 8·5 million people were affected by the most radical changes in social security for 40 years, and, overall, the changes have settled in extremly well.

Housing Benefit

Mr. Wilson:: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the number of people likely to qualify for transitional protection payments in respect of housing benefits.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We still estimate that over 300,000 households should qualify for the transitional payments announced by my right hon. Friend on 27 April following the changes in the housing benefit system.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that when the Secretary of State told the House on 27 April that people most severely and significantly affected by the housing benefit cuts would benefit from the transitional arrangements, he was guilty of a very cruel con on some of the most vulnerable people in society? Will he confirm that many of the people who are most savagely hit by housing benefit cuts will not and were never meant to be helped by these transitional arrangements? How many people have so far applied for the transitional arrangements, bearing in mind the confusing under-publicity of the scheme? Will he confirm that the calculation made by his Department is that only 10 per cent. of those who apply will be successful? Will he answer these points——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall get through very few questions if we have long supplementaries.

Mr. Scott: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's third question, because I have no idea who will apply, but I can

say that we have received 60,000 applications for transitional payments and that about 4,000 a day are coming in. We aim to have another advertising campaign in the near future to encourage the highest possible take-up of this protection, which, as we said at the time, is designed to limit housing benefit loss to £2·50 a week. It was never designed to protect people from rises in rents or rates which took place on 1 April.

Mr. McCrindle: The transitional arrangements not-withstanding, are there not many people who are ostensibly gainers under the new social security regulations who are being turned into losers almost entirely as a result of the necessary contribution of 20 per cent. to the local rates and the imposition of the water rate? I recognise the desirability of all citizens having some interest in local government expenditure, but does my hon. Friend remain satisfied that this is the most equitable way of achieving that?

Mr. Scott: Water rates were taken into account in the transitional protection. As for rates, £1·30 compensation for the minimum contribution to rates is built into the income support system. I believe that we tackled that problem in a fair and equitable manner.

Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister confirm that it is now 11 weeks since the scheme was announced and that, as yet, not a single claimant has received a refund? Many of them are now running up considerable arrears and facing threats of eviction by local authorities and private landlords. Do the Government not accept some of the responsibility for having got those people into that difficulty?
Will the Minister recognise that more than 5 million claimants have lost some or all of thier housing benefit, and well over 4,500,000 will get no help from the scheme—including all under 25, who have suffered a particularly savage cut in their benefit?
Finally, how long is transitional, and what is supposed to happen to claimaints when it comes to an end?

Mr. Scott: Those who have had the higher losses will have their transitional protection phased out over a number of years, so there is no question of the scheme being limited to a year. It is a remarkable acheivement that we have been able to set up the new office, employ and train the staff, establish the procedures and advertise all that so that I can say that the first payments will go out before the end of this week. We shall be anxious to achieve the highest possible take-up.
It is true that no transitional protection payments have been made under housing benefit, but they have been made for those in receipt of income support, who are the poorest people. Those who have not received benefit are by definitition not the poorest. Their payments should begin this week.

Social Security Reform

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect the social security reforms have had on the unemployment and poverty traps.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): When family credit replaced family income supplement, about twice as many working families with children became eligible for


help and the payments became more generous. Nearly all working families can now be better off in work. We ended the absurd situation in which a person on family income supplement whose pay went could be left worse off than before.

Mr. Riddick: That is an encouraging reply. Is not one of the major but little publicised advantages of the changes of last April the fact that it no longer pays to stay on the dole rather than to take a job? The Government are giving individuals the incentive to take a job. Does that not contrast starkly with the attitude of the Opposition, who clearly believe in blanket benefit and would prefer people to become more, rather than less, dependent on state handouts?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. There are now few families who would be better off out of work than in work. We ended the circumstances in which people could lose more benefit as their pay rose. Under family income supplement a family with three children who earned £75 could be £5·50 a week worse off if their pay rose to £130 a week.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister say something about the impact of the loss of income support on self-employed Harris tweed weavers? He will know something about that, because I have written to the Department about it. He will know of the great fear among these people that the loss of income support will act as a disincentive to others to join the Harris tweed industry and become weavers. Will he concede that the industry is unique and requires special measures, and will he undertake to review the impact of the loss of income support upon it?

Mr. Portillo: I shall be happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's letters and reply to them in due course. There is now a clear division between income support, under which the claimant must work 24 hours a week or less, and family credit., under which the claimant will work 24 hours a week or more. That division has simplified the system and is generally advantageous.

Mr. Franks: Is my hon. Friend aware that the apprentices in the shipyards of Barrow, whose places were formerly funded under the youth training scheme, have been laid off as a result of the industrial dispute and are being denied income support or unemployment benefit of any kind? Will my hon. Friend look into that as a matter of urgency and issue local instructions that unemployment benefit is to be paid?

Mr. Portillo: I cannot do exactly what my hon. Friend wishes, because these are matters for an adjudication officer. If a person is involved in a trade dispute, he is not eligible for unemployment benefit or income support for himself, although payments can be made to his dependants. It is for the adjudication officer to decide whether a person is involved in a trade dispute. I hope that that decision will be reached as expeditiously as possible.

Hospitals (Land Sales)

Mr. Simon Hughes:: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase the proportion of revenue from the sale of land belonging to hospitals which goes to district health authorities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): The policy is as set out in the land transactions handbook and by circular. It states that a significant proportion of the proceeds of sale should remain with district health authorities as an incentive for those districts to rationalise and dispose of property. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the total amount realised in England from land sales last year was nearly £190 million.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in the South East Thames region, the higher the sale price the more the region keeps? Therefore, there is an incentive, every time a hospital is sold, to go for the highest price, irrespective of what ends up on the site. Is she particularly aware that in my constituency, St. Olave's hospital in Rotherhithe is out for tender and there is a risk that a hospital set up to cater for the poor will have part of its land sold for housing for the rich, while many hundreds of thousands of poor, who need housing, health and community services, might be sold down the river by the policy of her Department?

Mrs. Currie: The health authority locally has a responsibility to make the best use of its property for health care. I understand that for the St. Olave's site there were proposals for a psychiatric day care centre, physiotherapy, a respite care centre, and so on. As for the way that the money might be used, the hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that £28 million is being allocated to the Guy's hospital phase 3 rebuilding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be visiting that site on Friday.

Mr. Yeo: Is it not of the greatest importance in promoting health care that health bodies should use every available penny, whereas the concept that appears to be advanced by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his party is that we should reduce the amount of money available for health care?

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is right. He might have pointed out that the determined efforts that we have been making recently to dispose of sites has brought a lot more money to the Health Service. I have already said that £190 million was raised last year, and that compares with 10 years ago, when the total receipts on the sales of surplus property were £7 million.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister look at the question in relation to proposals for the sale of land and hospitals, such as one in my constituency, which was owned by a charitable trust before being handed over to the NHS? When revenue is raised by such sales, should not a donation be made to the charity?

Mrs. Currie: I believe that that case was the subject of an Adjournment debate that I had with the hon. Gentleman not long ago. If I remember rightly, the charity that he had in mind had something to do with the mining industry. Those issues were settled a long time ago, back in 1948, when the hospitals were handed over to the Health Service. There is nothing more to be said.

Mr. Redwood: Is my hon. Friend aware of a scheme in Bromley, by a private company, to build a new 550-bed hospital, at practically no cash cost to the NHS, in return for land swaps? While not commenting on the merits of


that particular case, will she welcome the principle of such a deal and confirm that the rules will not get in the way of it?

Mrs. Currie: The details of the rules are properly a matter for another of my right hon. Friends, but we welcome such deals and look forward to much closer co-operation between the NHS and the private sector, which will benefit everyone concerned.

Cleveland Child Abuse Inquiry

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Cleveland child abuse inquiry.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): The total cost to central Government of the inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland in 1987 is likely to be around £1·5 million. This includes payments of £300,000 each to the Cleveland county council and to the Northern regional health authority as a contribution towards the costs of those authorities.

Ms. Armstrong: The Minister's reply demonstrates that good quality work is not cheap, and meeting the demands of the inquiry and its report will also not be cheap. Many of the authorities are worried that they will not be able to put the necessary resources into protecting children. Can we look forward to a statement from the Government that they will adequately fund local authorities to ensure that every child who is on a child abuse register is properly supervised, so that we may know that the proper resources to meet this frightening problem will be made available?

Mr. Newton: In my statement last Wednesday I said that we were putting additional targeted resources towards training, which is an essential prerequisite. The hon. Lady's question distracts attention—again, I apologise for repeating something that I said last Wednesday—from the fact that, although the Cleveland crisis caused pressure on resources in Cleveland, it does not follow that a lack of resources created the crisis.

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that when we talk of the Cleveland child sex abuse problem we make a mistake, and that it should be south Cleveland? There was no abnormality of numbers in north Cleveland. The abnormality was generated in the area where two stupid doctors used a discredited system to try to enhance their empires. There is absolutely no reason why the Government should put extra funding into that region for that purpose. The Cleveland child sex abuse problem occurred as a result of bad direction by the doctors and bad management by those charged with the responsibility of looking after the children.

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. I have no doubt that they will be taken into account by the Cleveland authorities when considering their response to the report.

Miss Lestor: Like many hon. Members last week, I am disappointed that the three-year training proposal will not be implemented. I recognise that some resources should go into the area of child abuse, but what steps has the Minister taken to include teachers in that training? It is clear to many people who have studied the Cleveland

report, and child abuse generally, that there is a great deal to be gained from training teachers to identify children who are suffering and are at risk.

Mr. Newton: The grants that I announced last week were principally directed at social workers, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has issued a circular to the education service. I am conscious of the fact that there are training needs elsewhere, which I will discuss with my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Lord: Recent tragic events in my constituency have highlighted the fact that some small private children's homes still do not have to be registered or inspected regularly. Bearing in mind everyone's grave concern about the welfare of all our children, and especially those vulnerable children in care, will my right hon. Friend undertake to examine this matter with the greatest possible urgency, with a view to introducing the necessary legislation as quickly as possible?

Mr. Newton: Yes; I will consider that matter with a view to ascertaining the most appropriate action.

Mr. Tom Clarke: If it is not a lack of resources that is causing the problem in training, what is it? Why has the Minister not explained why he has not accepted the recommendation of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work? Is there not a difference betwen £7 million and £40 million, and why should this be the only country in Europe to have a two-year training programme?

Mr. Newton: I have explained several times the importance of improving the training, among other things, of existing social workers in that area. I did not regard the CCETSW proposals as the best way to spend that money. We hope to make a number of important improvements in the training of existing as well as future social workers. The right course is a balanced package of that sort.

Nurses' Pay

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what increases nurses working in paediatric intensive care in inner London can expect to receive as a result of the 1988 nurses' pay award.

Mr. Moore: The maximum pay for a staff nurse with post-basic training in paediatric intensive care in inner London is now £12,538, an increase of over £3,000, or more than 31 per cent., above the previous maximum annual salary.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that he recognises the problems of recruiting specialist skilled nurses in London is very welcome, as are the steps that he has taken? Is he further aware that the problem is one of recruitment, not only in inner London, but in outer London, and that the sooner we can achieve regional pay negotiations the better?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend will remember that the Government sought in their advice to the review bodies to move a little further on the question of geographical pay, but the review bodies did not see fit to go beyond the


London area. Under the recommendations, the outer London area carries, in addition to London weighting, a 5 per cent. supplement.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the problems for nurses in inner London is the high cost of housing? In determining their pay award, and in considering the sale of nurses' homes, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in future nurses can live reasonably near the hospitals at which they work?

Mr. Moore: There is no doubt that in inner London housing is an important factor in the employment of nurses. Last year the Government encouraged the Nationwide building society and other organisations to get together in some areas to assist in shared ownership. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that over the past two years the total rental increase for nurses' accommodation has been 4 per cent. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's point about nurses' accommodation. That is an important feature of the debate.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of suggestions for differential payments for nurses in paediatric branches and for sisters in other branches of the NHS, although they are thought to be doing equal work? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nurses and sisters at all levels should be given equal pay for equal work under the 1988 award?

Mr. Moore: Of course nurses must be paid equal pay for equal work. The idea behind the review system was to give additional rewards to those with additional skills and responsibilities, especially those relating to patient care. There were clear shortages in those skills, and that is what the review regrading system is geared to address.

Private Nursing Homes

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards health authorities financing out of their budgets private nursing homes within the precincts of National Health Service hospitals.

Mrs. Currie: We welcome close collaboration between the NHS and the independent sector including, where appropriate, making premises available on NHS land. However, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that health authorities have no power to provide finance for private homes, though they can of course buy places on contract.

Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister not worried that ward 5 at Fazakerley hospital in Liverpool was closed recently, causing considerable distress to the elderly patients, and that a private nursing home for 85 people is being established, no doubt at a price? Is it not incongruous that National Health Service wards are closed but the private sector is allowed to get its profits out of nursing homes in the precincts of an NHS hospital?

Mrs. Currie: It sounds as though part of the proposal is a good idea. The hon. Gentleman may like to check with his constituents in Liverpool before he takes that line. The total number of council-provided homes for elderly people in Liverpool stands at 43, providing 1,600 places, and the total number of private homes in Liverpool stands at 66,

providing 1,800 places. The private and voluntary sectors in Liverpool are already providing most of the care for old people.

Mr. Baldry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that once the Health and Medicines Bill is enacted it will be possible for district health authorities to enter into collaborative projects with private health providers and, if the authorities want, to provide private hospital accommodation in their own right?

Mrs. Currie: Depending on the exact terms of the contracts being negotiated. some of these projects are already legal. Work is proceeding on them. We welcome these projects.

Clinical Grading Review

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that the clinical grading review is based on actual jobs performed at the beginning of April and that managers will not be rewriting job descriptions.

Mr. Newton: The comprehensive management guidance which has been issued to health authorities makes it clear that, where this is possible, posts should be graded on the basis of existing duties and responsibilities.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister gave a commitment to fund the award fully, but there are disturbing stories that, because of the cash limits placed on health authorities, managers are trying to squeeze the award down to the money available. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that would be a shortsighted policy, which could only cause problems in future years and lead to a sense of betrayal among nurses?

Mr. Newton: The Government have made the funds available to the health authorities to meet the costs of the award on the best available estimates. We have issued guidance to assist that process. I have every intention of ensuring that it is carried out in good faith.

Mr. Hayes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and efforts on nurses' pay, but what fills many of us in the Conservative party with dread and foreboding is allowing regions to dole out the money to the districts, particularly regions such as North East Thames, which do not seem to have the management expertise to do so efficiently or properly.

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's views on the North East Thames regional health authority, which I share with him, but the sensible way to proceed is in the normal way that we seek to allocate funds in the Health Service.

Ms. Harman: Is it not now clear that the sum that the Government have set aside will not fund fully the nurses' pay award? The Government must give an unequivocal commitment to fund in full the results of the clinical grading review, otherwise managers will have to choose between downgrading nurses to meet the cash limits and cutting services to meet the pay award. Which is it to be?

Mr. Newton: I say simply that the hon. Lady is extremely unwise to venture such categorical assertions at such an early stage in this very large exercise.

Benefit Claimants (Resources)

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set up an investigation into the effects on the disposable resources of persons dependent on social security benefits of the April 1988 social security changes, and in particular the effect on those in receipt of industrial injuries pension, war pensions or disability pensions.

Mr. Portillo: We shall be monitoring the effects of the social security changes on all client groups—including the disabled.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the most traumatic of the changes in April were the increases in payable rents because of the erosion of housing benefit, and that of all the changes the most hurtful are those affecting the groups mentioned in my question—industrial injuries pensioners, war pensioners and disability pensioners? Even allowing for the transitional payments, they will find their special pensions reduced by perhaps £2 per week because of the way in which the benefit is working. Will the Government look again at the working people in those positions are not hit by that change?

Mr. Portillo: Let me separate those categories a little for the hon. Gentleman. He will know that for war pensioners the local authority discretion on housing benefit has not been removed. Any local authority that wishes to make special arrangements for war pensioners is free to do so. The other two categories are covered by the transitional payments, and any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents should now be applying to the transitional unit in Glasgow.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the distribution of explanatory leaflets for the benefit changes? Does he accept that two citizens advice bureaux in my constituency have drawn to my attention their concern about that? Can my hon. Friend do something to expedite the matter? I think that it would help.

Mr. Portillo: I am sorry to hear of my hon. Friend's concern. Some 8·5 million copies of leaflet RR4 on housing benefit have been published and most have been sent out. All social security offices, local authorities and many advice centres have them. If my hon. Friend has a particular difficulty in mind, I should be pleased to consider it.

Mr. Ashley: Can the Minister explain why charitable payments are now taken into account as income under the new income support scheme? Can he tell the House whether it is true that if a blind couple with guide dogs receive help in feeding their dogs, that couple could lose up to £10 a week under that scheme?

Mr. Portillo: The first £5 a week is disregarded. Other payments are taken into account as capital, as I understand it. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that payments that are made to third parties are not taken into account. That provision could be helpful in the instance that he has mentioned.

Mr. Favell: It has not escaped my hon. Friend's notice that, for the Opposition, the alarmist flavour of the month is to suggest that more people are living in poverty. Will

my hon. Friend tell the House whether the bottom 10 per cent. are better, or worse, off than they were six or seven years ago?

Mr. Portillo: Since 1981 that group has experienced an increase in living standards of about 8 per cent., which is better than for the population as a whole, but my hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that under the old statistics, which are based on supplementary benefit, if the rates of benefit became more generous, more people appeared to be living in poverty.

Social Security Reform

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet the Disability Alliance to discuss the effects on people with disabilities of the social security changes which took effect on 11 April 1988.

Mr. Scott: We already have.

Mr. Flannery: I wonder whether Conservative Members are treating these questions seriously. The hon. Gentleman, amidst noise from the Government Benches, has given me a virtually monosyllabic answer. I have asked the Minister whether he really understands the misery and poverty that these changes in housing benefit and income support are causing. I want to ask him again and get a better answer. Does he not realise that there are severely disabled people in the community who at this moment are deeply worried about these changes? Will he tell the House exactly what he will do to satisfy these poor disabled people that these changes are not going to push them mercilessly into the sort of position into which the old and the sick are being pushed?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard my answer. Let me give it to him again. We have already met the Disability Alliance. That was the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me.

Mr. Skinner: What about the money?

Mr. Scott: I will tell the hon. Gentleman about the money. In the period of this Government, £3 billion has gone to disabled people. There has been an increase of 80 per cent. in real terms. Then, as part of the reforms that we introduced at the beginning of April, an extra £60 million is going into the disability premium, another £8 million into the severe disability premium and another £5 million into the Independent Living Fund. We have fulfilled our commitments to disabled people.

Mr. Alfred Morris: How is the Minister replying to the Alliance's letter of 28 June, which shows that over 1 million disabled people were made worse off and expresses deep concern that these benefit changes came before the report on disability that the House is awaiting from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys? Will he categorically confirm, or deny, The Independent's report of 23 June that the OPCS findings are already with the Government and that, by delaying its publication, the Government are deliberately trying to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and criticism and, by implication, acting in a way that is grossly contemptuous of this House?

Mr. Scott: Disabled people enjoy transitional protection at the point of change. The first report from the OPCS survey is likely to be published in September. There will be


at least another three, and possibly another four, reports, the last of which I would expect to be published about 12 months from now. Until we have all those reports it would be premature to make any judgment about the extent and the nature of disability or the best way of meeting that need.

Medical Laboratory Staff

Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the pay and working conditions of medical laboratory scientific officers within the National Health Service.

Mr. Newton: A claim for improved pay and conditions of service was submitted on 5 April. Since then we have received numerous letters from hon. Members and individual medical laboratory scientific officers. Negotiations are continuing in the appropriate Whitley council.

Mr. Cook: The Minister will know that the Secretary of State has reason to be grateful to these laboratory technicians, in that his blood samples, when he was in a private clinic, were tested and quantified by these technicians in St. Thomas's hospital. So the critical position of these technicians is well known to the DHSS team. Will the Minister concede that what is necessary are pay and conditions that will not only retain the technicians that we already have but attract to the profession people of the necessary calibre to service the industry?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that almost every hon. Member, quite apart from my right hon. Friend, has had cause to be grateful to MLSOs at one time or another over the years. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the management side has put to the Whitley council a pay offer of 5·5 per cent., together with proposals for a restructuring, which would lead to a further increase in pay on assimilation to the new structure. Those proposals are designed precisely to meet the sort of problem to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these people, although far less glamorous than nurses, in many cases undertake work of greater responsibility than nurses, with life and death involved, and that, certainly so far as Adenbrookes in my constituency is concerned, they have had a raw deal and deserve better treatment?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I care to tread into the minefield of the precise comparison with nurses, hut I certainly wish to pay tribute to the value of the work of MSLOs. The nature of some of that work has changed a good deal, hence the importance of the restructuring proposals.

Mr. Robin Cook: As the management and staff sides meet tomorrow, why does the Minister not take this convenient opportunity to say that he will fully fund the cost of regrading? If he will not do so, can he really expect the House to believe that regrading is the way to solve the problem of low pay when he knows that management is offering only 2·1 per cent. to cover its costs? How does he hope to meet the Government's targets on cervical

screening when the laboratories that carry out the screening are losing trained staff at the rate of 15 to 20 per cent. a year?

Mr. Newton: The offers being made by the management have been made after proper assessment of the cost. I am confident that they can be met. I should like to take this opportunity to wish both sides well for successful negotiations tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Boateng: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

The Prime Minister Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was present at Victoria station to mark the arrival of the President of Turkey. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a state banquet in honour of President Evren.

Mr. Boateng: The Prime Minister is clearly in need of some rest and relaxation. Will she be letting her hair clown this year at the Notting Hill carnival? Before she does that, will she address herself to the deep-rooted problems of deprivation and discrimination that exist not only in Notting Hill but throughout our country? Will she do something about a situation in which apartments are for sale on our river at a cost of £370,000, with a Porsche thrown in, while in my local social security office in Harlesden, as a result of DHSS guidelines, the officers are paying out less than 2 per cent. of the total budget? [Interruption.] Will she confirm that the real cause of the moral thuggery about which the Home Secretary complains is in 10 Downing street itself?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for brief questions, please.

The Prime Minister: No, I am not in need of rest and relaxation. The moment that the House rises I shall be going to Australia for the bicentennial celebrations. [Interruption.] I shall be there while the House is not sitting. The hon. Gentleman asked about social security payments. He will be well aware, particularly as I have heard some of the replies today, that the amount spent on social security has gone up enormously. The standard of living of the lowest groups has increased more than the rest.

Mr. Higgins: In view of the stand that my right hon. Friend has taken against terrorism, will she take time today to condemn the appalling attack yesterday on a Greek passenger vessel? While expressing sympathy to the victims, will she also pay tribute to the schoolchildren from the Sion school, Worthing, and those in charge of them, who not only reacted bravely but administered first aid to other people who had suffered?

The Prime Minister: I gladly respond to both parts of my right hon. Friend's question. This was an appalling act of terrorism against people on holiday. All acts of terrorism are appalling, but this was a particularly appalling one. The schoolchildren from Worthing were an


enormous credit to themselves, their families, their school and to Britain in the way that they tackled the terrible events. I gladly pay tribute to them.

Mr. Hattersley: rose——[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These interruptions take up a lot of time.

Mr. Hattersley: On 23 June the Secretary of State for the Environment gave the House figures purporting to compare the burden of poll tax with that of the rates. Were those figures correct?

The Prime Minister: I would stand by what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. I do not recall that matter, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be surprised if I did.

Mr. Hattersley: If the Prime Minister genuinely stands by what the Secretary of State said, why has she endorsed a candidate in Kensington who denies her figures and says that the burden of poll tax in Kensington will be a third of the figure announced by the Secretary of State? Why are Ministers endorsing his fabrication every morning?

The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the candidate in Kensington—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: For Kensington it has been said that the community charge would be—could be—£122 after the ILEA overspend—Labour's ILEA overspend—of £218 has been eliminated and after the money paid under the safety net has been eliminated. Those are two major figures. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish the safety net to be abolished, as that would hit many Labour authorities very hard indeed. It means that some areas—in some Tory councils—have to pay higher rates while it obtains. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to be proud of the £218 ILEA overspend.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that the Prime Minister is wholly in command of her subject [Interruption.] Does she realise that, in order to give even spurious justification to that calculation, she must be announcing to the House that she proposes a massive cut in education spending throughout the ILEA area? If the purpose of abolishing ILEA was to cut the cost of London education to the bone and to cut services with it, why did she not have the guts to tell the House at the time?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman were in command of his subject, he would realise that I had given him two very precise answers and even that the figures added up. The forecast of £122 is what the charge would be with no ILEA overspend of £218, which is to be laid at the door of a Socialist authority—the highest expenditure for some of the worst education in the country —and after the safety net, which is a burden deliberately placed on many Conservative authorities over a period of four years to help those in many Labour authorities. Does the right hon. Gentleman want that to be eliminated?

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the support given by Bury, Wigan and Rochdale councils to the employment training programme? Will she urge

Bolton council not to turn its back on this excellent scheme to help the unemployed, and does she deplore the violent tactics used by some of the opponents of the scheme?

The Prime Minister: I hope that all authorities, including Bolton, will support the employment training scheme, and I welcome the support given by many local authorities. Those who do not support the scheme are depriving young people of very good training which will be very important in the coming decade because fewer young people will be leaving school and we shall need a greater proportion with the requisite skills. I hope that every authority will urgently support the scheme.

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cousins: Will the Prime Minister find time to meet representatives of the 500 advanced electronics workers at Marconi, Tyne and Wear, whose factory shut down yesterday, and the 5,000 shipyard workers whose jobs are at risk, to tell them face to face whether they, too, must get on their bikes to the bed-sits of south Kensington?

The Prime Minister: To the first part of the question, I am afraid that the answer is no. Redundancies are always a cause of great concern, especially in the areas where they occur, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, unemployment is falling in every region. He knows full well that there would be no effective industry if we did not keep up to date with the times and if we did not rationalise industry. That has to be done on many occasions. No electronics factory could exist without keeping up with the very latest developments, and that sometimes means redundancies. The hon. Gentleman referred to shipbuilding. I assume that he was talking about the problems of Swan Hunter, or the problems of Sunderland. I read what some Opposition Members said when the main frigate programme went to Yarrow, but let me state clearly that that programme went to Yarrow because Yarrow put in the best tender.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: When my right hon. Friend is discussing with her ministerial colleagues the question of Government hospitality, will she advise them to follow the example of the Leader of the Opposition in quaffing South African wine?

The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend makes the point more effectively than I could.

Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fraser: Is the Prime Minister aware that in London there are many hundreds of children, including over 100 in my borough, who are officially recognised as being in danger of physical and sexual abuse but to whom, because of staff shortages, no social worker can be allocated? Is she aware that exploding house prices and the impending poll tax will only make matters worse? What will she do to assist these vulnerable children?

The Prime Minister: With all due respect to what the hon. Gentleman has said, I should have thought that that


came very high on the list of priorities of any social worker and that any children who were vulnerable would be one of the first duties of the social workers who are there. [Interruption.] Otherwise, if the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases, will he please give the information to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has been doing excellent work for over a century or more?

Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will know of the announcement last Saturday about the Saudi Arabian arms deal. She will also understand that my constituents who work at Westland greeted that announcement with delight and, if I may say so, some relief. Will she take an early opportunity to come to Westland so that they may thank her in person for the part that she played in achieving that order for this country?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps one day I will visit the firm. May I point out that I think we obtained the Saudi Arabian order because of the excellent way in which the Tornado order was fulfilled. That is due to all in the company, both management and work force, who carried out that order, as well as to the training given by the Ministry of Defence and the support services. It is a success story that won another powerful order, which we welcome.

Mr. Strang: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anger in Scotland at the remark by the chairman of the British Steel Corporation last week to the effect that the Ravenscraig strip mill will probably close next year? Does she recognise that the strip mill is crucial to steel making at Ravenscraig and that Ravenscraig is fundamental to Scotland's future as an industrial nation? That is why any move to close it will be met by a campaign of popular resistance the like of which has not been seen before. Will she take the opportunity this afternoon to congratulate the Ravenscraig work force on achieving levels of productivity which are the highest of the five United Kingdom integrated plants and probably the highest in Europe? Will she affirm the Government's commitment to steelmaking at Ravenscraig?

The Prime Minister: I read very carefully the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Industry as long ago as 3 December 1987 on British Steel Corporation privatisation and the future of steel making at Ravenscraig. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that statement, which made it clear that there will continue to be commercial requirement for steel making at Ravenscraig for at least

the next seven years. My right hon. and learned Friend was tackled by Opposition Members straight away about the hot strip mill. He made the position clear:
There is a problem with hot strip mills, as I frankly disclosed in my statement. There is surplus capacity in the United Kingdom. However, the commercial judgment of the corporation is that it can continue to operate all four strip mills, at least until 1989."—[Official Report, 3 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 1112.]
It was known from the beginning when the statement was made that there was considerable hot strip mill capacity in the corporation. That statement was made about the one associated with Ravenscraig as far back as 3 December 1987.

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend accept the House's gratitude for taking on board six refurbishment areas of rundown inner cities held by Labour authorities? Does she agree that it is a national scandal that today more than 136 council dwellings, largely in the hands of Socialist bureaucracies, lie vacant? Will she tackle that matter at the earliest possible opportunity?

The Prime Minister: I saw the welcome that my right hon. Friend's statement on action housing trusts received in the House yesterday. The people living in those areas will greatly welcome the increased expenditure on their housing and the higher standard of living and greater security that they will enjoy. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that many council houses are left vacant for far too long. They number about 110,000 properties. The complaints about homelessness made by many of the authorities concerned would be far more credible if they were to fill some of the accommodation that they have left empty.

Mr. Maclennan: As the Sharpeville Six's stay of execution is running out, will the Prime Minister make the strongest representations to the South African President that it would hinder the dialogue between South Africa and our country, and with all democratic and justice-loving countries, if those executions were to proceed?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, representations have already been made to President Botha——

Mr. Winnick: By the right hon. Lady?

The Prime Minister: By me, through the usual channels and through the best channels, for clemency towards the Sharpeville Six. If their death sentences are confirmed, those representations will be made again. They will not be made only by me, but will be reinforced by the 'Toronto summit Seven and the Community Twelve.

House of Commons Library

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are the guardian of Back-Bench rights, I am sure that you would want Back Benchers to be well informed, and our Library services are essential in that regard. You may not be aware that the latest volume of Winston Churchill's biography is missing from the Library. That is very unfortunate, because if it were there hon. Members could read on page 190 that when Churchill was in Cuba on 1 February 1946 and was asked to criticise the Attlee Government, he replied that he never criticised the Government of his country while he was abroad.

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the loss of the book.

Ravenscraig Steelworks

Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the Prime Minister's answer about the Ravenscraig Steelworks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order must be for me and cannot arise from a question to the Prime Minister.

Dr. Reid: A few days ago the chairman of the British Steel Corporation made a statement that he had advised the Government about the probable closure of the Ravenscraig hot strip mill. Is it in order to raise at this point the fact that the answer given by the Prime Minister today suggests——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to raise it, because that would be an extension of Prime Minister's Question Time. It is not a matter for me. It is an Opposition Day, and a great many Opposition Members wish to speak.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify the matter, and to ensure that we know exactly what is the situation in respect of Ravenscraig, will you, in your capacity as Speaker, tell the House whether you have received a request from any Minister for permission to inform the House of the up-to-date situation? If no such request has been made, will you convey to the Government our request that a statement be made to clear up the matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I have received no request for a statement. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

BILL PRESENTED

Young Employees (Training Requirement) Bill

Mr. Barry Sheerman, supported by Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Gavin Strang, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Ron Davies, Ms. Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mr. David Hinchliffe and Mr. Gerry Steinberg, presented a Bill to require employers to provide training for all employees aged between 16 and 19 years of a standard at least equal to that provided under the Youth Training Scheme: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 196].

Ravenscraig Steelworks

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have not had the opportunity to give you notice of my intention to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, but the action that provokes me into doing so has taken place only in the last few minutes, and I take the view that Standing Order No. 20 should be flexible enough to take account of anything that happens before the time at which the Adjournment is moved. Therefore, I beg leave to move the Adjournment——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I do not believe that anything new has taken place since 12 o'clock today. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's reply, and, as I understood it, she was reading out what had been stated previously. I cannot hear a Standing Order No. 20 application arising out of that question.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you give us some guidance? There is more to a statement than the mere words read from a bit of paper, and Opposition Members feel that what we heard from the Prime Minister about Ravenscraig is of extreme urgency and importance to many hon. Members and many people in Scotland. We must have an opportunity to debate the matter.

Mr. Speaker: There are opportunities to debate the matter. There are Opposition days, Adjournment debates and Questions.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will hear the hon. Members as long as they realise that they are putting in jeopardy—[Interruption.] Order. I am on my feet. —the equal claims of their colleagues, many of whom wish to take part in two very important Opposition day debates.

Mr. Gavin Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I doubt if I can give an answer to the hon. Gentleman, but I will take his point of order.

Mr. Strang: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. The point that must be grasped is that the statement read out by the Prime Minister gives the impression that the remark by the chairman of British Steel was not, as was widely reported, some sort of gaffe. Having given that statement credence, we consider it fundamentally important for us to hear a statement from an Industry Minister to clear the matter up. Can you help the House and ask the Leader of the House to call an Industry Minister to appear before us?

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it necessary for us to be so solicitous to these points of order, bearing in mind that Opposition Members are absorbing their own speaking time because, as usual, they have not enough speakers to support their business?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the whole House appreciates —I certainly do—that this is an important matter for hon. Members who represent constituents who work at Ravenscraig. I cannot help the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), but I am sure that what has been said has been heard and noted on the Front Bench.

Dr. John Reid: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I hear the hon. Gentleman, I shall have to take it into account very carefully later.

Dr. Reid: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that I do not wish to put in jeopardy the chances of other hon. Members to make a contribution, but it must be understood that 20,000 Scottish jobs appear to have been put in jeopardy today. I should like to submit an application under Standing Order No. 20. I shall explain to you, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear such an application, for the reasons that I have already given.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Order 1988 (S.I 1988, No. 1124) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Lightbown]

Smoke Nuisance (Domestic Sources)

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable smoke emitted from a chimney of a private dwelling to be deemed for the purposes of Part III of the Public Health Act to be a statutory nuisance.
Let me make it clear at the outset that it is not my intention in bringing in the Bill to try to transform all areas of this land into clean air zones or to impose bureaucratic controls on the types of fuel or appliances used. The Bill's intention is merely to remove an anomaly in existing public health legislation and to enable local authorities to act in cases in which gross smoke nuisance occurs from domestic chimneys. It is indeed an anomaly that, under our present law, smoke may be a statutory nuisance except when it is emitted from the chimney of a private dwelling.
Since, in all urban and suburban areas in Britain, clean air legislation is in force limiting the types of fuel that may be used, smoke nuisance from domestic fires is largely a rural problem, where the clean air legislation is not in force. In such areas, therefore, people have no statutory protection from neighbours who cause a gross nuisance, either because of what they choose to burn on their fires —I am talking not about logs, but about motor tyres, animal carcases or old window frames—or because of faulty chimneys or flues. Such people have recourse to the law through a civil action, but they cannot always afford that.
The fact that the omission is an anomaly was recognised by the Government who, in a consultative document on air pollution control, issued in December 1986, said that it was their intention to repeal section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956 so as to bring non-dark smoke emissions from dwellings within the ambit of the statutory nuisance provisions of the Public Health Acts. Such a proposal is strongly supported by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, the members of which have to deal with the problem. It states:
It was of concern to the Institution that the proposals in the consultation paper did not culminate in new consolidating and revising air pollution proposals which would have included the provisions for the control of nuisance.
No doubt hon. Members will be able to quote examples from their own constituencies. A couple of examples from south-west Norfolk serve to illustrate the effect on individuals of the anomaly that exists. Mrs. Hammond's cottage is semi-detached. Unfortunately for her, her neighbours are enthusiastic users of a solid fuel range, which is refuelled several times a day and then burnt with the damper shut down. She says:
The smoke billows continuously and at times so thickly that we cannot see from one end of the garden to the other … We cannot go outside to work in the garden or on the cottage, nor can I hang out laundry ….On winter evenings my neighbours light the open fire also and we get a double dose. My nine-year-old son's doctor believes that his constant cough is caused by the smoke and he has had to go to hospital

for chest X-rays in the past several months. Our neighbours admit that their flue should be 18 inches higher than it is now to prevent turbulence and down draughts, but they will not pay a builder to install a new flue. The environmental health officer said that he has no powers to do anything about the pollution and we are very reluctant to go to court ourselves … Do we have to wear a face mask every time we go outside?
Mrs. Thompson lives in a semi-detached house with a flat roof single-storey extension on the rear—an exact replica of her neighbour's house. Unfortunately for her, the neighbour installed an oil boiler attached to an old flue in what had been the old washhouse. It goes without saying that that was done without building regulation permission. Because the flue is not tall enough to provide draught for the boiler, the fumes roll along the roof and into a first floor window in Mrs. Thompson's house. No action can be taken by the local authority, and no action can be taken under the building regulations.
In each of those cases the nuisance was investigated by the environmental health officer and was found to be genuine, but all action had to be abandoned because the council had no powers to act. Theoretically, it would be possible for such local authorities in rural areas to declare clean air zones to deal with the problem of smoke from domestic chimneys. However, that would be too draconian a solution to deal with isolated instances of nuisance, and it would be unnecessarily repressive for the majority of people, who are law-abiding and considerate neighbours.
What are needed are powers for local authorities to investigate and deal with nuisance caused by domestic smoke in the same way as they can deal with other domestic nuisance. After all, it has been recognised since the end of the previous century that no emission of smoke can be tolerated if it constitutes a recognised health hazard, either short-term or long-term, but that does not apply to smoke from domestic sources. That omission was put right for people living in towns with the clean air legislation in 1956. My Bill seeks, in a less draconian fashion, to offer the same protection from isolated incidences of gross domestic smoke nuisance for people in rural areas. It is a limited measure, designed to deal with a problem which, although it may occur relatively rarely, nevertheless constitutes a gross nuisance and a health hazard. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will be supported.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Malcolm Moss, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. David Martin, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. David Davis and Mr. Tim Boswell.

SMOKE NUISANCE (DOMESTIC SOURCES)

Mrs. Gillian Shephard accordingly presented a Bill to enable smoke emitted from a chimney of a private dwelling to be deemed for the purposes of Part III of the Public Health Act to be a statutory nuisance: And the same was read a First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 July, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

Opposition Day

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Inequalities in London

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the growing division between rich and poor in London; deplores the damaging effects of poverty on the health and welfare of the worst-off Londoners, which is reducing their chances of decent homes, worthwhile jobs, sound education and satisfying leisure; recognises that this will be made much worse by the Government's poll tax, Housing, Education and Finance Bills; notes the contrasting luxury of the rich who have benefited so much from this Government's policies; and calls for new policies to secure for all Londoners the benefits enjoyed under this Government by the privileged few.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Dobson: It would be difficult for anyone in possession of his senses to deny that our capital city at the moment presents a sharp contrast between those who are doing well and those who are not. On the one hand we see people who are affluent and arrogant revelling in a display of wealth both tasteless and joyless, while on the other we see people degraded and demoralised, with no jobs, no homes and no hope. All that would be bad enough if it were the accidental by-product of circumstances beyond human control, but it is not. It is the direct product of Government action and Government inaction.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You informed us that a number of hon. Members wished to take part in the debate. As only two hon. Members representing London constituencies are present, would it be in order to adjourn the debate for a short time so that more hon. Members can come into the Chamber to participate in the debate?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. Mr. Dobson.

Mr. Dobson: It seems to me that it is a gross abuse of the House for a Tory Whip to go to the Back Benches and ask his hon. Friend to raise a false point of order.
Nowhere is the contrast between rich and poor greater than that between those who have a pleasant home of their own and those who have no homes of their own and are forced to share with parents or in-laws or dwell in squalor. No fewer than 15,000 families in London are officially homeless. About half those families live in bed-and- breakfast hotels. For most of them, their lives are like hell on earth.
Conservative Members need not take my word for it. A recent report by the British Medical Association stated:
Even if hotel accommodation is in good order, it is rarely appropriate to the needs of young children. It is difficult to maintain hygiene while washing, eating and sleeping in one overcrowded room. High levels of gastroenteritis, skin disorders and chest infections have been reported … The stress … undermines parents' relationships with each other and their children. Normal child development is impaired through lack of space for safe play and exploration. High rates of accidents to children have been reported.

That is not a report on the Third world. The people described are our fellow citizens living today within two or three miles of the House, and we should all be ashamed of ourselves.
Thousands more of our fellow citizens in London are living in overcrowded homes. Thousands of young people with children are sharing with their parents or in-laws. The Government have put the clock back. Once again many poorer families are living with three or four generations in one crowded house or flat. To put that right, the Government will have to spend more money on housing.

Mr. John Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No. It is essential that we get on, and I do not think that my giving way will help.

Mr. Maples: rose——

Mr. Dobson: Mr. Speaker asked us to keep our speeches to a minimum so that everybody could have an opportunity to speak, and I shall stick to that request.
With all the recent preaching that we have heard from the Prime Minister about the need for Christian virtues, we might have hoped that the precepts of the New Testament would illuminate the Government's housing policy, but I suppose that we can hardly expect the Prime Minister to practise what she preaches. Nevertheless, it was the Prime Minister who, in 1980, shocked the Sunday audience of "Weekend World" with the statement:
Nobody would have remembered the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money too".
The recent Budget showed that the Government have the money but lack the good intentions. At least the Levite and the priest confined themselves to passing by on the other side. The Government are actually making matters worse. The only characters in the parable of the good Samaritan whom the Government resemble are the thieves who mugged the poor traveller in the first place.

Mr. Ian Gow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way—that would not help at all.
The housing crisis did not happen by accident. Much of it is a direct result of Government policies. In 1979 councils and housing associations in London started to build nearly 11,000 homes.

Mr. Gow: rose——

Mr. Dobson: By 1986 that figure had dropped to 3,000. No wonder homes to rent are hard to come by.

Mr. Gow: rose——

Mr. Dobson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but it is the only time that I shall give way to a Conservative Member.

Mr. Gow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that, although the good Samaritan did indeed have a kind heart, what was of more practical significance was the fact that he had two pence in his pocket? Was not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister therefore making a quite legitimate point?

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is of course entitled to intervene in this debate about London, had listened to what I had said, he would know that the Prime Minister said:
Nobody would have remembered the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions.
People remember the good Samaritan because Jesus Christ preached a parable about him. It is not a question whether he had money or good intentions—the story appears in the Bible because somebody preached the parable. To suggest, as the Prime Minister did, and as the hon. Member for Eastbourne does, that that parable would not have been remembered if there had not been money around is preposterous. We can assume that the Levite and the priest had money, and that they passed by on the other side, and that what were missing were good intentions. That is precisely what the Government are lacking.

Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No.
Subsidies have been cut and rents have soared. As now, the highest council rents in London in 1979 were charged by Kensington and Chelsea borough council. In 1979, its average rent was £13 a week. It is now £33 a week, but that is nothing on the private sector, where rents of £300 a week have been sought for three-bedroom flats. One-bedroom flats can command more than £100 a week, and £115 a week was recently registered as a fair rent for a three-bedroom maisonette.
Rents have risen, but house prices have soared. In some parts of central London very ordinary flats go for as much as £250,000, and one-bedroom flats go for £100,000. Most people on average incomes in London have been priced out of the house buying market. How many nurses, bus drivers or teachers can afford the current prices? By contrast, some of those who have benefited most from the Budget are doing very well and their extra wealth contributes to the house price spiral which does so much damage to people who are less well off than they are.
Conservative Members need not take my word for that, either. Last week, from a profession to which the Conservative party appears to be entirely devoted—the estate agents—came a letter through the letter boxes of Kensington. It said that one single factor had contributed most to the buoyancy of the recent London property market, and that was the Budget. It went on to say:
The lowering of the top rates of tax has resulted in a large increase in the disposable income of those who command salaries between £40,000 a year and £50,000 per annum … In consequence the considerable demand for quality flats and houses is in part fuelled by many people who are seeking to trade up. The demand for quality family houses with gardens in all price ranges is especially high.
What a record combination the Government have put together for housing Londoners: record low house building, record high rents and record high prices, combined with record levels of homelessness and of overcrowding, in modern times.
The Housing Bill will make matters worse. In the time available I shall not repeat the arguments put so forcefully over the months by my hon. Friends—especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who has done such sterling work. I shall merely remind the House of what happened the last time the Tories put their faith in private landlords. Kensington contributed a new word to the English language, for it was in Notting Hill, following previous Tory attempts to bring market forces

back into housing, that the crooked landlord Rachman used harassment and physical violence against his tenants to such effect that the whole squalid process was named after him. Between them, the new Housing and Finance Bills will not only conjure Rachman's spirit from the grave, but will give it a tax incentive to come out and haunt us again.
In many parts of London today we see much building work on areas of derelict land. In a decently ordered society, the priority for that land would be the needs of the local communities that surround it. What are the priorities for the development of such land, whether in docklands or behind King's Cross station in my constituency? Are they to be homes for local people, parks and playgrounds for their children, hospitals and clinics or jobs that local people will be able to take up? Not likely. Under the new dispensation the local community comes last.
The main use for property now is property speculation, which has caused a fivefold increase in land prices in London. The property speculators now decide what gets built, and if anyone objects the Government back the speculators. Not for them any finely balanced judgments of local housing versus a local park or local industry. The first priority is profits for the speculators, which rise in direct proportion to the damage that they do to the rest of society.
If any Conservative Members challenge my views on this I recommend that they read what Winston Churchill said about property speculators in 1909 ——

Mr. Maples: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Dobson: Who are these speculators? Are they especially well equipped to take the decisions on what should be built where in our capital city? I have always believed that many of them are crooks, but apparently the Government have great faith in them. On 7 March this year the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister responsible for inner cities told a press conference:
Business men in the past … provided the leadership that made their cities great … It can be done again … Our business men today have the resources, the expertise and … the commitment to help the Government to make lasting changes in our Inner Cities.
I wonder whether that golden vision of civic leadership was what inspired the Brink's-Mat bullion thieves to invest their loot in docklands. I know that Proudhon said that property is theft, but this is ridiculous. Surely Ministers do not expect us to believe that these rich thieves took courses in urban design before putting their money into Cyclops wharf. Instead of undeveloped land being used to help the whole community, it is being exploited to benefit a few rich property sharks and their friends in the Tory party.
If the housing and planning system is penalising the poor and benefiting the best off, what is happening to education, for education is one way in which a whole society, or a few individuals, can improve their prosperity and prospects? Here again the Government are hammering the schools used by most London children and at the same time increasing public subsidies to private schools. Worst of all, many caring education authorities are being forced to reduce their efforts to help the poorest children most. Units for children with special learning difficulties have had their staffs reduced. Grants to help


poorer children stay on at school are being cut or are under threat, and it is the same with clothing grants and grants for school trips.
School meals were described by The Lancet as the "sheet anchor" of child nutrition. When the Government came to power, about half of London's schoolchildren could afford to buy a school meal. Tory education authorities, encouraged by the Government, raised prices of meals from 25p to as much as 75p and as a result, by last autumn, only one third of London's children could afford to buy a school meal. To its everlasting credit, the Inner London education authority—whatever the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) may say about it —and the Labour outer London boroughs struggled to keep their prices down. They also used their discretion to give wide entitlement to free school meals, but the social security changes have put an end to that.
From April this year, at least 34,000 children in London have lost their entitlement to free school meals. Two thirds of those children got nothing in place of their free meal, while the parents of the rest got anything between 66p and 38p a week instead of a free school meal. In contrast, schools for the well-off are receiving more and more subsidies—for example, through the assisted places scheme. Recently we have even had to endure the graceless spectacle of some of these academies for the grasping qualifying to receive cheap food from the Euro-surpluses.
On top of that, the Education Reform Bill, by abolishing ILEA, will impose further years of turmoil on London's schools and children. Teachers, who should be concentrating on the job of teaching, will be distracted by wondering whether they will have a job at all. At the same time, the Government will insist that less and less is spent on the schooling of London's children. All those decisions are being taken by Ministers who spend more and more on the private education of their own children.
When it comes to health care, the contrast between rich and poor grows more stark in London every day. When the Government came to power, the number of NHS beds in London was 64,000 and the hospital waiting lists—far too high—totalled 104,000. The number of beds has been cut to 52,000, but the number of Londoners waiting for operations has soared to 133,000. Those figures are not and statistics: they are lists of human beings suffering pain and misery.
While the Government cuts have reduced the number of beds in the NHS, Government encouragement and subsidies from the taxpayer have expanded the number of beds in private hospitals in London from 1,900 to 3,200. That is all very well for those who can pay, but it is no help to those who cannot. The cost of private health insurance is way beyond the reach of the less well-off. The extra private hospital beds in London have actually extended NHS waiting lists, because most of the work at the private hospitals is done by doctors moonlighting from the NHS.
By the Government's calculations, the 10 most deprived local authority areas in England are all in London. Needless to say, Government support to help local councils to maintain and improve services to local people has been reduced. More reductions are promised.
Whilst average incomes have continued to increase, the gap between the poorest and the more affluent has widened. The difference is most marked in London, where real incomes of the poorest households have gone down by 17 per cent. and real incomes of the highest households have increased by 18 per cent.
The social security changes did not just deprive 34,000 London children of a free school meal. They took money from tens of thousands on housing benefit and hammered the worst-off most of all. Families who used to get single payments to help them over a crisis no longer qualify. A family, after a year in bed and breakfast, still needs help to get a few sticks of furniture together, but now such families are not entitled to a grant. They have to go cap in hand to apply for a discretionary grant from the social fund. This was introduced to cut the money available to help such people.
The Ministers concerned must be proud of their handiwork. "Didn't they do well?" Grants under the social fund in London in May this year total just 6 per cent. of the average monthly grants made before the system was changed—a mean 94 per cent. cut in grants for those in desperate need. Meanwhile, the Budget poured millions into the pockets of the rich and the Finance Bill is strewn with more tax loopholes for them to exploit, including extending the business enterprise scheme to promote Rachmanite landlords.
In the end, Londoners do not want welfare. They want to be able to fend for themselves. Above all they want jobs, well paid and decent jobs. When the Government came to power, 136,000 Londoners were out of work. The London total in the prosperous south-east now stands at 311,000. Despite the massive increases in schemes of one sort or another, that includes 91,000 young Londoners who are starting their would-be working life without the money and self-respect that go with a job.
What of the people in work? Some salaries in the City are ludicrous and indefensible, with people getting paid more in a week than a qualified nurse gets for a whole year. It costs a lot of money to live in central London. Again, Tory Members need not take my word for it. They can take the word of a former Cabinet member, Lord Gowrie, who resigned from the Government because £33,000 a year was not enough for him to live on in central London. Is that is so, and he has not resigned from the Tory party, how do he and his friends expect one of the firefighters who did their gallant duty at King's Cross to get by in central London on £13,000 a year?
Many people in central London now rely on casual and part-time work—work that usually means insecurity, poor pay and bad working conditions. Contrast that with the situation in the City, where gilded youths flit from job to job with golden handshakes both when they start and when they finish.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Did the hon. Gentleman say gelded?

Mr. Dobson: Perhaps they should be gelded, and we would have fewer of them in future.
On top of all that, Londoners face the poll tax. The poll tax is a deliberate attempt by the better-off to transfer the burden of local taxation on to the shoulders of people worse off than themselves. It is an effort by the well-off to abandon their obligations to their fellow citizens. It is bound to add to the growing divisions between rich and poor in London and throughout the whole of Britain.
What sort of society have the Government helped to create in London? It is a society in which old people are afraid to go out at night, drug addiction is at record levels, racial attacks fill fellow citizens with fear, violence and vandalism are commonplace, and the streets are filthy.
The Tory creed of greed worsens old wrongs. Their worship of selfishness mocks those who feel some responsibility for their fellow citizens. It stifles the generous instincts of ordinary Londoners, but it cannot stamp out concern for family, friends, neighbours and whole communities. All over London those concerns are growing. The Government will not be able to ignore them much longer. If they were to ignore them, it would be not so much at their peril, but at our peril, because as Abraham Lincoln said:
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Our capital city is now socially the most divided in Europe. We wish to unite it and give everyone a common faith in our city, but we will never achieve it while we have this Government.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the question and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Government on those economic and social policies which have created conditions in London in which real incomes are rising; notes, with particular satisfaction, that between 1981 and 1985 the real incomes of the poorest rose faster than average; endorses the Government's policies to alleviate inner city deprivation in London through the programmes set out in Action for Cities, including economic regeneration through the encouragement of enterprise, employment and training, improved housing, through such programmes as estate action, the establishment of Housing Action Trusts and the extension of the role of housing associations, education and revitalising the urban environment.'.
I take part in this debate, as does the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), as someone representing a London constituency. I am a Londoner, having been born, educated and earned my living in the centre of London. I did not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of London. I did not recognise it. because it does not exist—it is a fantasy.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: I will give way in a moment, but not just yet —and probably not to that hon. Gentleman. That London does not exist except in the fantasies of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Banks: Come down to the Embankment tonight.

Mr. Scott: I know about the Embankment; I have been more concerned about the homeless and down-and-outs in London than the hon. Gentleman has during his political career. I have played my part in trying to alleviate their plight. I shall have a word or two to say about the homeless and where the blame for homelessness in London should lie. I advise the hon. Gentleman to hold his horses for a moment.
I have considerable admiration for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. His contributions are refreshingly frank. On television recently—perhaps he will correct me if I have his words wrong—someone suggested to him that the Labour party had lost the general election because of a muddle over defence policy, and he said. "No, we lost it because no one believed that we could run a

whelk stall." It is 12 months since the Labour party lost that election, and I wonder how much its position has improved in the intervening 12 months.
I was disappointed that we had an ideological tirade from the hon. Gentleman. He should go out and look at London today and see whether private landlordism or public landlordism has contributed more to the squalor of our capital city, and decide where the right lies.
I recognise that the probable reason for this debate today is the by-election in Kensington the day after tomorrow. I look forward with some relish to the result on Thursday night, and perhaps some of the contributions will help to ensure that the Tory candidate wins that by-election. It is interesting that in the first by-election in this Parliament—in a Tory "marginal" seat, with a majority of about 4,500—the Leader of the Opposition swans off abroad, leaving behind the smiling predator for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I would not leave the country with the hon. Member for Brent, East hanging around Parliament.
The Leader of the Opposition deserves the Milton Obote prize for overweening self-confidence. But perhaps he was accurately predicting the result of the by-election on Thursday and, as he would not want to comment on it, he thought he should be several thousand miles away.

Mr. Clive Soley: As the Minister has mentioned the Kensington by-election, will he tell the House and the electors of Kensington whether he and the Conservative candidate—but specifically the Minister—support the closure of the four hospitals in west London that serve that area as well as others?

Mr. Scott: I am a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security, and eventually the decision on the restructuring of the hospitals in that part of London will have to come to the DHSS for ministerial decision. It would not be proper for me to judge that in advance of the decision that my Secretary of State will have to make in due course.
The Labour party's approach to this election was well heralded in the title of its motion, "Inequalities in London"—the Labour party's old obsession with equality rather than the quality of life. It is interested not in maximising human life chances and increasing people's choices about their lives, but rather in the drive for equality at all costs, despite the lessons that it should have learnt from its past about the direction in which that policy——

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Minister is concerned about equality, can he justify, and say whether he agrees with, the fact that between 1976 and 1987 the gap between the average earnings of the top and the bottom 10 per cent. in London increased by 50 per cent.?

Mr. Scott: I shall deal in some detail with equality and the increasing standards of living at the higher and lower levels later in my speech.
Nationally, we have the option of one party or the other being in office. But in London local government, we have the benefit of seeing two separate ideologies at work, two different political philosophies——

Mr. Simon Hughes: And more.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman's party multiplies so often that it is difficult to tell how many there are at any one moment.
Let us contrast how the two main parties approach their task. The main local authorities dominated by the Labour party are characterised by extravagance, loony left nonsense and absolute contempt for the interests of the ratepayers in their boroughs. Last year, Brent overspent by £104 for every adult in the borough; Camden by £352; Ealing by £100; Greenwich by £178; Hackney by £263; Haringey by £151; and Lewisham by £246. None was underfunded.
Compare that with what happens in Kensington and Chelsea. Three years ago, the council reduced its rates by 30 per cent. It has held its rates steady ever since and provided a first-class service to its ratepayers. It has given a good, effective service and looks forward to the savings that it will make in the not-too-distant future when at last we remove the burden of the Inner London education authority from its back.

Mr. Tony Banks: If the Minister believes that the Labour local authorities are betraying their ratepayers, can he explain why at the previous local elections, the London borough of Newham returned 60 Labour councillors and none from other parties? How did we betray the electors there?

Mr. Scott: I contrast that with our recent victories in two by-elections in Hackney— [Interruption.] We do not have a universal pattern. In some parts of London, at last Labour voters can see the advantages that Conservative administrations can bring them—the freedom to move away from the dull dependence on public landlords and Labour authorities.
I was talking about the prospect of removing the Inner London education authority from the backs of London voters. About 20 per cent. of the school leavers in ILEA leave school with no graded exam results, compared with an English average of half that figure. In 1987–88, ILEA expenditure was 75 per cent. above its grant-related expenditure. If it is argued that ILEA must deal with special inner-city problems in its schools, I say that ILEA spends 50 per cent. more per secondary school pupil than outer London boroughs, and 60 per cent. more than Birmingham, which has similar problems.

Mr. Ron Leighton: If the Minister complains that ILEA spends 50 per cent. more per pupil, will he explain why the Metropolitan police spend twice as much per head as police forces elsewhere?

Mr. Scott: The Metropolitan police provides specialist services to a number of other forces. In effect, it is a central police resource as well as being the police force for the metropolitan area. ILEA educates 4 per cent. of the children and uses up 8 per cent. of local authority expenditure on education. Children who enter ILEA schools have IQs of the national average, although twice the national average fail to get grade results at the end of their education.
There is no doubt that, at vast expense, ILEA has been failing the children of inner London. I am confident that, when that education is removed to the boroughs, a much better service will be delivered to those youngsters.

Ms. Harriet Harman: What about the parents?

Mr. Scott: Parents, too, will benefit.

Ms. Harman: They do not want the change.

Mr. Scott: Of course not. The hon. Lady knows that few people face the prospect of change with enthusiasm. They do not like it. They are conservative. With the fears whipped up by the Labour party many people were panicked into thinking that education standards would fall once ILEA was abolished. However, once the new system gets going, no one will want to return to ILEA. Who now worries in London about the death of the Greater London council?

Mr. Tony Banks: I do.

Mr. Scott: There are one or two.
We have heard a great deal about the down-and-outs, those living rough and the youngsters in London whose numbers, we are told, are increasing. The evidence in the DHSS does not support allegations that the numbers sleeping rough have increased under the new rules. The two main offices in central London dealing with itinerant claimants have found an overall decrease in callers since 11 April. DHSS resettlement units in London still have available for homeless people beds which are not taken up.

Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott: I have done much better than the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in giving way. I always believe in giving way, but it tends to inhibit the natural coherence of the speeches which I like to deliver. However, I shall give way.

Mr. Banks: is the Minister aware of a pamphlet, which was launched yesterday with all-party support, pointing out the trap into which the single homeless, especially in London, have fallen, because of the social security changes? Income support is paid two weeks in arrears, so people do not have the money to get bed-and-breakfast accommodation. No one will take their word that they will have the money. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to consider having emergency payments for the single homeless in London and elsewhere?

Mr. Scott: Evidence of the problem is not apparent to DHSS offices—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members could contain themselves for one, brief, shining moment. As reported in The Guardian this morning, I have asked DHSS officials to meet the organisations concerned and to listen carefully to their evidence. Of course we will do that. As I have said about all our social security reforms, we shall monitor carefully and note the impact of changes. As the House will have noticed, we have already made changes to the system of housing benefit and income support to take account of the places where the shoe was pinching unduly harshly.
It comes ill from the Labour party to criticise the Government for failing to help pensioners. The Labour Government presided over levels of inflation which virtually wiped out the savings of pensioners. They failed to pay the Christmas bonus an 1975 and 1976. They failed to honour their commitment to link pensions to earnings——

Ms. Harman: I was not born then.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady cannot remember Labour Governments. Perhaps that is just as well, because some of


their actions would certainly not square with her compassion. Labour cut the Health Service, reduced pensions in real terms, and so on. I suspect that, so long as the Labour party retains its present leadership, the hon. Lady will not need to worry about assuming the burdens of office, however charmingly she might do it.
I have no hesitation in saying that in London, as in the rest of the country, we have presided over a situation in which the incomes of pensioners have been rising twice as fast as for the population as a whole. We hope that that process will continue during the period of this Government.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Scott: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has just marched in and has not heard any of the speeches. I see no reason to give way. I made it clear when I gave way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that I wanted to proceed with my speech.
I suppose that quite a lot of statistics will be bandied across the Floor of the Chamber. We know the old definition of statistics. I remember being told by the young lain Macleod when he worked in the Conservative research department that Churchill had sent for him and asked for statistics on infant mortality, when what he wanted was one side of a paper which showed that more babies died under Labour Governments than under Conservative Governments. Nevertheless, there are statistical arguments. The Select Committee on Social Services published a report today, and it would not be right for me to comment on it.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked about the outcome of the survey of the living standards of the poorest and the richest. It is right that we should have a clear idea of the authoritative statistics. The first and most authoritative statistics we have derive from the family expenditure survey, which describes the position of all those living in households in the lower half of the income distribution. Those statistics offer a wealth of information and repay careful study— [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen, because they may just learn something.
There is one important message for the debate: in recent years, the living standards of people in all income groups have been rising substantially. Claims that the poor are getting poorer do not stand up to examination. If the Opposition want to find the facts, table A1 of the households below average income statistics shows that between 1981 and 1985, on average, real incomes for the population as a whole rose by no less than 6·4 per cent.
That in itself is a substantial achievement, but it is clear —although I understand that some Opposition Members may wish to ignore this evidence—that the lowest income groups shared fully in that growing prosperity. Between the same years, those in the lowest tenth of the income distribution saw an increase in average real incomes of more than 8 per cent. while those in the lowest 20 per cent. saw an average real terms increase of 6·6 per cent. Not only have the lowest income groups been sharing in the growing prosperity, but, between those years, they did better than the average.
I started by saying that I failed to recognise the description of London given by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The Government's overall economic policies have seen not just our country as a whole but London boom and all sections of London society benefiting from that boom. Average weekly earnings are now the highest in the country and unemployment, which is falling steadily, is below the national average. However, many people in London are hit by high rates and the mismanagement of council housing because of the incompetence and indifference of Labour councils.
In London, GDP per capita rose by 92 per cent. between 1979 and 1986. Average weekly earnings in Greater London rose by 5·8 per cent. between April 1986 and April 1987, to become the highest in the country. That is the London in which we live. Unemployment has fallen by 105,000—more than 25 per cent.—since June 1986, and vacancies are steadily increasing. The story is good and London is performing strongly. Youth unemployment has fallen by 33 per cent. from its peak. Government Departments are spending millions of pounds in supporting the urban programme and a number of projects providing training and employment for many people, especially the young.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras particularly mentioned homelessness. Yes, we suffer from homelessness.

Mr. Dobson: The homeless suffer from homelessness.

Mr. Scott: No, as a society we suffer from homelessness. There are 16,000 homeless households in the Greater London area. There are 33,000 empty council homes in the same area—twice as many—and what are local authorities doing to make sure that those empty council properties are brought into use? The Government will make extra capital allocations available to local authorities to help them bring those empty properties into use. Let us hope that they are put to the purpose of solving the problem of homelessness in London.
There is no need for gloom and doom as we contemplate London today. What we need to do is to build on the strength of the economy of this country as a whole and to lift the yoke of Socialism and bureaucracy from the backs of our people, as well as the political ideology of the loony Left councils. We said goodbye to the GLC and nobody shed a tear. Shortly we shall say goodbye to ILEA and nobody will shed a tear except tears of joy as we see education standards improve in our inner city. We are committed to helping all Londoners.

Ms. Harman: What about the crime figures?

Mr. Scott: I shall certainly give the hon. Lady the figures. More serious offences involving violence against the person fell by one fifth in 1987, thus making a substantial improvement.
Living standards are now rising sharply in London, not least among the poor. I recognise that the debate is an attempt to influence the outcome of the Kensington by-election. I very much hope that it will and that it will not be too long before Mr. Dudley Fishburn appears at these doors to take his seat. I commend our amendment to the House.

Ms. Diane Abbott: I speak as a London Member, as someone who was born and went to school in London and who has worked in London all her working life. I also speak as someone who is tired and weary of the implicit contempt for the people of the inner city that comes out in every statement from the Conservative Benches.
The Minister said that he did not recognise London from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Indeed, that would be so—things look different from Chelsea. The Minister talked about figures. He talked about London in the abstract. He talked about GDP. The one thing that he did not talk about was people. I challenge him to come to Hackney, talk to people and ask them, as people, as individuals and as families, whether their GDP has gone up, and whether they feel richer or better off under Thatcherism. I think that he would find that the answer is no.

Sir George Young: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Abbott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my point.
As the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, I am particularly well placed for observing growing chasm between rich and poor in London. In Hackney, we have the poorest borough in the country but in the south, at the tip of the borough, we see people who have made billions under Thatcherism. We see the contrast there.
At the most recent general election, the Government expressed a wish to do something for the people of the inner city. The Prime Minister said that the Government must now turn their attention to the inner city. She has turned her attention to it much in the way of Hitler's Luftwaffe. Instead of any concern or measures aimed to help the inner city, my people in Hackney have seen legislation in this Parliament that represents a series of hammer blows to their welfare, the welfare of their children, their standard of living and their hopes for the future.

Mr. Scott: Will the hon. Lady explain to us how the Labour party came to lose those two by-elections in Hackney?

Ms. Abbott: If the Minister met the two Conservatives who won in New River ward, particularly Mr. Christopher Sills, he would not be sitting there gloating. They do his party no credit. If the Minister met Mr. Sills, the smile would be wiped off his face. In Hackney we are confident that we shall take those seats back at the next borough elections.

Sir George Young: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Abbott: I have already given way. I should appreciate the opportunity to develop my argument before I give way again.
As I said, in Hackney, we have seen a series of hammer blows aimed at our welfare and standard of living.
The Government talk about concern for the inner city year after year, but we are rate-capped in Hackney. The pattern of the allocation of the rate support grant over the

eight or nine years of Thatcherist rule has resulted. in relative terms, in taking money away from the poorest and the most deprived in the city and giving it to the shires.
In London and the inner cities, we have also seen a Government bent on a spiteful, ideological holy war against areas whose only fault is that they vote Labour. Under the Government and under Tory boroughs in London we have seen the utter degradation of the notion of municipal virtue. Who would have thought that one would see a responsible London borough sell off its cemeteries for 15p? I am waiting for a single Conservative Member to get up and condemn the activities of Westminster council that have earned it the attention of the fraud squad.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Abbott: With the greatest respect, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my point.
Among the hammer blows aimed at Hackney has been the abolition of ILEA ——

Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Abbott: No.
After the abolition of ILEA, Hackney will lose £60 million on present figures. I am waiting for a Conservative Member to get up and make a commitment that we shall not lose money in real terms as a result of abolition. With the prospect of abolition, we face a net loss in money terms and the falling apart of the education system.
On housing, the Minister has sneered at inner-London authorities and the number of empty flats. Inner-London Labour authorities would say to the Minister, "When will you give us the money to do up the flats? When will you allow us to spend the full sum of our receipts on doing up those flats?" The Minister's talk about empty flats would be more impressive if the number of council house starts was not at its lowest for many years under this Government. Also under the Government we see moves to deregulate rents in the housing association sector and the private sector.
On the poll tax, in my constituency, which is the poorest area in the country——

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Abbott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will a low me to develop my point.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to challenge Conservative Members to stand up and answer a point and then refuse to give way? The hon. Lady has done that because she is frightened of what might be said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Giving way is a matter for the hon. Lady, who has the Floor.

Ms. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that that was the case.
In the poorest area in London, we shall pay a poll tax of between £500 and £600 a head. Is that fair?
There have been hospital closures all over Hackney with the resultant problems for services and a loss of jobs in the area.
We heard the Minister talk about the elderly. Will he say what I should tell Mr. Fisher, one of my pensioner constituents, who under the housing benefit changes and


despite the transitional arrangements, finds himself with a rent that he cannot pay? He is piling up arrears and is facing the prospect of going to prison. What has the Minister to say to thousands of pensioners in London and elsewhere who cannot pay their rents, despite the transitional arrangements, because of the changes in housing benefit?
The Minister talked about maximising life chances—a wonderful phrase. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how the Government have maximised the life chances of the girls who come to my surgery, who live in overcrowded flats in fungus-ridden tower blocks with no hope, because of the Government's policies, of ever having decent accommodation? Will the Minister tell me how he has maximised the life chances of the skilled men in my constituency who have been made redundant in their 40s and will never work again? Will the Minister tell me how he has maximised the life chances of the young black men in my constituency who face an unemployment level for young black people in Hackney of one in two? Above all, will the Minister tell us all how this Government have maximised the life chances of the hundreds of people who can be seen every night sleeping out in cardboard boxes on the South Bank and the Embankment?
I believe that, if there is one message that should go out to the electors of Notting Hill—and I speak as someone who was born not far from Notting Hill—on the eve of the by-election, it is that we are seeing a Government who have brought about the greatest and most grotesque contrast between rich and poor in London since Victorian times. Above all—and this has particular relevance to Notting Hill—we are seeing a Government as a consequence of whose policies—the systematic draining of money from council housing, the deregulating of rents in the private sector and housing associations, the extension of the business expansion scheme to private landlords—Rachman will walk again in inner London. That is the message that should go out to the electors of Notting Hill.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled gave us a very sound analysis of the situation, which certainly brought the debate back to reality, and I want to try to continue that reality. Like him, I can claim to know London and be a Londoner. I have represented an inner London marginal constituency for 18 years. I won my council seat, a Socialist seat, from the late Tony Greenwood, and I want no lessons from the Opposition about knowing the problems of Londoners. I noted very carefully the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), speaking from his normal seated position, which do not help us very much.
The only comment made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), when asked why Labour lost two council seats in New River, was to make a vicious personal attack on Christopher Sills, who is a very good councillor and understands the needs of the people. I noticed that she was not able to give the reason. The reason is that people are sick and tired of those who control Hackney from Mare street.
This is a short debate and I shall follow the example —the only time that I am likely to follow his example—of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I shall give way only once, and then only if I make specific reference to an hon. Member, because I know that a lot of my hon. Friends want to speak.
Of course there is poverty in London. There has always been poverty in London. One has only to look at Hogarth, one has only to read Dickens, to know that full well. There was poverty in London, in the east end, when my grandfather's generation of Jews came over from Russia; there was abject poverty. But those in that generation pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They wanted no state aid; they wanted no subsidies. That is the contrast between what happened then and what was alleged in "Faith in the City" to be happening.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: No, I will not. I have made my position very clear, and I thought that that would have reached even the hon. Gentleman.
A rundown London, recovering from the war, with a policy of building new towns, which in the main took out the young, active workers from London, was accompanied by a general attitude from what was substantially a Socialist London that could be described, as my hon. Friend said, as levelling down. At that time, profits and enterprise were dirty words. Those who thought that way could not see that people had to be set free in order to rise.

Ms. Abbott: Set free from what?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I did not interrupt the hon. Lady. Perhaps she might do me the courtesy of not interrupting me.
Winston Churchill had a slogan: set the people free. This was translated into the removal of a mass of controls and restrictions. But, as I want to illustrate a little later, that was not sufficient. He also believed that in the provision of social benefits the ladder to rise out of poverty was perhaps only as important as the safety net to look after the poor, the sick and those who could not help themselves. It took the vision and determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to see that the people had to be set free from crippling taxation and that the ladder of opportunity was more important because those climbing it were positively able to help those who still needed the safety net.
What is poverty? It is a combination of deprivation through poor housing, poor health and low incomes—a combination of any or all of these. I should like to analyse those for a moment.
First, let me take poor housing. For almost the entire post-war period London suffered because much of it, particularly inner London, was run by the Labour party, whether the old London county council or the old metropolitan boroughs. My knowledge of the east end of London goes back to fighting seats in Islington, Hackney and Stoke Newington. I know those areas and I know the problems. I saw how people suffered because of the policies adopted by the Labour party in those days. What people wanted in housing was not Ronan Points, but small houses with gardens. I can remember a debate in the House when we were talking about planning in London and blaming the planners for much of the evils of London,


and Bob Mellish made it clear that he, like me, endorsed the view that London had been ill served by its planners over those years.
Today, the Labour party has two stock excuses: lack of funds owing to Government policies, and massive homelessness. Both are untrue and largely self-inflicted. If the Labour authorities in London did not have £60 million of uncollected rents, they could do up the 33,000 vacant dwellings without the need to use capital receipts, and rehouse the 16,000 registered homeless. One does not, as all hon. Members—or all hon. Members bar one—know, count arrears of housing rent as capital. It is revenue, and one uses the revenue to do up dilapidated council properties. Thirty-three thousand empty properties, £60 million, 16,000 people—even the Labour party, in spite of the poor education record of ILEA, can do that bit of arithmetic.
On health, all the statistics show that there have been massive improvements. In 1986, the four Thames regions treated 1,792,000 in-patients, compared with 1,610,000 in 1979. They also treated 266,000 day-patients in 1986, compared with 144,000 in 1979 [Interruption.] It is interesting that empty kettles still make the most noise.
In 1979–80, expenditure by the Thames regions was £1·7 billion. In 1986–87, after allowing for inflation, the figure was £3·2 billion, an increase in real terms of over 10 per cent. Had it not been for RAWP, the creature of the Labour party, London would have been even better served. Those two figures put to bed the cant and hypocrisy that we have seen in the past few months from the unions and the Labour party which are trying falsely to claim that under this Government the National Health Service is dying.
The third of my three poverty factors is income. Let us look at the incomes of full-time employees in Greater London. In 1979, average gross earnings were £101·50. In 1987, they had risen to £255·70. If we look at the net amount, we find that in 1979 it was £71·90 and in 1987 it was £169·80. That means that average earnings are up by almost 30 per cent. in real terms. That gives the answer to those that say that Londoners are not doing well.
About 115,000 Londoners have bought their council homes. As those of us who have been in local government know, people are rehoused not according to the size of their bank balance but depending on their housing need. People are slowly—all too slowly—being able to buy their homes and are climbing the ladder, dragging themselves up as they would wish, despite restrictions put on them by authorities such as Camden.
Some of the worst areas of poverty, deprivation and dereliction were in London's docklands which were left to rot for a decade and more because of the interminable internecine battles between the GLC and the London boroughs. The vision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) enabled us to put into legislation ideas that some of us had put forward, which said that it was time to remove from the clutches of Labour authorities the people in docklands. We wanted to give them the chance to have their area properly revived.
One merely has to walk through docklands today to see the enormous benefits for the people there. Whether those benefits are new housing or new employment at the London City airport, they are there for those who want to see. The trouble is that many Opposition Members do not want to see them. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) is right. He and I have known each other for

a long time. The House would not be discussing this subject if it were not for the impending by-election in Kensington.
The Labour party is not interested in London because its members are no longer in touch with real Londoners. The party does not have people like Bob Mellish or the original Ron Brown. It is a collection of people spewed up by the Left, and they are so out of touch that, in spite of all the evils we are alleged to have committed, there are now more Tory Members in London than at any time in our history. That is because the average Labour voter of the type that existed 20 years ago will not come out and vote for the modern Labour candidate. I do not blame them.
The facts speak clearly for themselves. I remind the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that just prior to the last general election he and I took part in a radio car interview. In the radio car in Soho square he finished by saying that the Labour party would do well at that election. I was asked if I would be satisfied if we had the same number of seats in London, and I said that I would not and that, as party vice-chairman, I had my eyes set on winning more seats. I was right, and, as so often happens, the hon. Gentleman was wrong.

Mr. Dobson: It was Fitzroy square, not Soho square.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the car had to go back twice for equipment. Either the car or I was misdirected. My point is that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in what he said.
If we are to finish the debate on a useful note, we shall have to pay more attention to the way in which we can help people to climb out of poverty. We should do that rather than just increase the size of the safety net. We must realise that it is kinder and wiser to assist people to become more independent and to take responsibility for themselves and their families than to trap them for ever into the dependence on the state that the Opposition want.
My first election was in Islington in 1949. I remember going into the courtyard of a block of flats and hearing the Labour party loudspeaker cars saying, "Come out and vote for the Labour party because it is the party that gave you these flats." If we now ask those tenants whether they want the flats or the right to own them, I know what the answer would be, and so does the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We can all quote statistics. I remind the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) that at the last election, as at the one before, the majority of Londoners voted against his party. Opposition Members representing London constituencies speak for more than half the voters of London.
I want to start with people and not statistics. It will not be surprising if I speak about people that I have come across in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Yesterday morning I took part in a press conference for my colleague William Goodhart, who is our candidate in Thursday's by-election. On the way back I walked through the underpass at Notting Hill Gate. That underpass leads to the tube station and also serves as a means of crossing the road. I was approached by a young man and a young woman who were begging for money. The young man was called David and was an 18-year-old Scot. The girl was 19


years old and Irish and her name was Renèe. They go to Notting Hill every day because there are rich people in Kensington. They think that in Kensington they may get money, in one case to visit a boy friend outside London or in the other case to buy the other contact lens that David needs.
People are begging in the streets of Kensington in 1988. The two people that I have mentioned squat in Peckham in a one-bedroom flat that houses at least six people every night. They wait for the person who occupies the flat to come home and let them in but last night he did not come home at all and one of them slept in the lift. They do not find London a place of equality of opportunity or choice.
Somebody in my office dug out a short quotation which is perhaps appropriate. It says:
Whene'er I walk the public ways,
How many poor that lack ablution
Do probe my heart with pensive gaze,
And beg a trivial contribution!
Perhaps the one quote we have not yet heard from the Prime Minister will say: "For ye have the poor always with you and they are to be blessed." In London there are now more poor people than when the Prime Minister went to No. 10 Downing street.
I should like to mention two other people, who feature on this poster. One is the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensbury, a resident of the London borough of Kensington. He lives in two houses, 44 and 46 Bedford gardens. He pays rates and he will have to pay poll tax, but he will save £1,757 under the poll tax. He and his wife will have to pay about £470. Of course, he voted for that inequitable tax in the other place. In the same area, Fred Leaney works as a porter in a block of flats and lives in Henry Dickens court, W11. He and his wife will have to pay the same amount of poll tax, because they do not qualify for benefit. They will have to pay £433 more than they pay in rates. That is how the Government legislate for equality in London. A porter in a block of flats will pay the same as one of the richest Members of the other place.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Does not the Liberal "Focus" leaflet that the hon. Gentleman produced also say that the community charge will account for only a quarter of the cost of local government and that the Duke will be paying as much as 16 times more for local government than Fred?

Mr. Hughes: The leaflet does not say that, because the principle of taxation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that the more one has, the more one pays. The poll tax is different in that the more one has, the less one will pay relatively. That does not make a taxation system more equitable.
Library statistics show—the Minister may challenge me if he wishes—that, between April 1978 and April 1987, the difference between the highest and lowest 10 per cent. of earnings increased by 50 per cent. I concede that both lower and higher earners earned more, but the lower earners increased their earnings by 133 per cent., whereas the higher earners increased their earnings by 199 per cent.
In London in 1980, only 450,000 families—I say "only"—were in receipt of supplementary benefit. By 5 May 1987, 760,000 families were receiving supplementary benefit from offices in Greater London. I know what the Minister will say: if more benefit is paid out, more people

will receive it. Supplementary benefit is meant to be the test of basic needs income, and the number of families receiving benefit has nearly doubled in that short time. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, the real incomes of the richest 10 per cent. rose by 18 per cent. between 1979 and 1985, while the poorest 10 per cent. lost 17 per cent.

Mr. Scott: If the level of benefit is improved, the number of people in poverty will seem to increase. About 60 per cent. of increases in expenditure during this Government's period in office have been accounted for by real-terms increases in the level of benefits rather than by increases in the number of people coming into benefit. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that. Let us take an absurd example: if one doubled the level of supplementary benefit, one would bring a huge number of extra people into poverty. The figures need to be cited with caution.

Mr. Hughes: All Governments in recent times have assessed what is necessary as the basic level of income, to which the state then adds. This Government have fiddled the figures and reduced them several times. The figure below which one is entitled to support has nearly doubled in a few years. The Minister cannot therefore argue that there are not more people relatively poorer in a richer Britain. We are a richer country—of course we are—but the rich are getting richer still and the poor are poorer relative to their fellow citizens. That is the unfairness, and Londoners are sick to death of the inequality practised by the Minister and his colleagues.
I can tell the Minister all about it. I live in docklands—the area praised so graphically by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). I know the difference between someone living in a grotty damp council flat on an estate in Southwark and someone buying a £2·5 million penthouse flat with a view of Tower bridge. That is not equality: it is gross, obscene and absolute degradation.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to official statistics, the number of people claiming means-tested benefits increased from 4·4 million in 1979 to 8·2 million in 1987? Does he regard that as one of the problems of success that we have been told about by the Government?

Mr. Hughes: We are a richer country, but the wealth is being divided up in a grossly unfair manner. That is our complaint; it is very simple. A Government who wanted to be fair would not give away massive tax handouts to the rich in the Budget, while people on social security got less. Some pensioner couples in my constituency now have to pay £32 a week for housing instead of £16 a week in April, although they have no more income. That is not fairness, when people in high-paid jobs in the City take home substantial amounts every week—sometimes hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds in real income.
Three quarters of the London elderly and two thirds of the London disabled are now below the Government's level necessary for supplementary benefit. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) accurately said that she represents the borough which, according to the indices of the Department of the Environment, is the poorest local authority in England.


The 10 poorest authorities in England are all in London, and Southwark is also one of them. Even in Tory-controlled Kensington and Chelsea——

Mr. David Evennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall not give way.
In Kensington and Chelsea. 30 per cent. of households lack basic amenities in two wards, and in two wards 54 per cent. of people are pensioners living alone. Boroughs have pockets of poverty no matter who runs them. The reason why boroughs such as mine do not elect Tories and why Tories get about 10 per cent. or less of the vote is that poor people do not trust the Conservatives to help them to get richer. They know who will best look after them. It is not the Conservatives. It never has been and it never will be. The Tories look after themselves and their friends first.

Mr. Evennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, the hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
Did the great docklands boom reduce unemployment in Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets? It did not. Unemployment increased more in those boroughs than in Greater London as a whole. From October 1982 to September 1987, there was a 15·5 per cent. increase in unemployment in the docklands boroughs. I concede that unemployment is now falling, but the jobs are not going to the people who most need them. In July 1986, 51 per cent. of unemployed people in Southwark between the ages of 16 and 24 had been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. The numbers of Southwark's unemployed have doubled in 10 years—not relatively, but in real terms.
Let us consider health. Directly opposite the Labour party's headquarters in Walworth road, a Southwark building carries the slogan
The health of the people is the highest law".
Having done some research, I gather that that is a quotation from Cicero. The trouble is that health care is not available to all on an equal basis. Let us consider the figures cited by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, which show relative benefits to authorities in the Health Service. The four Thames health regions are the only regions to have suffered a 2·8 per cent. real cut between 1982 and 1986. I can give the Minister the evidence to prove it.
Since 1981–82, 14 per cent. of hospital beds have been lost in London and more than 1,400 beds were lost last year. The waiting list for those needing urgent treatment in 1986 made up 29 per cent. of the national list, although London has only 14 per cent. of the population. Last year, the numbers on the waiting list went up nearly 10 per cent. Meanwhile, between 1982 and 1986, there was a 45 per cent. increase in private hospital beds in the four Thames regions. At the same time, the Thames regions had to write off nearly £500,000 of unpaid private hospital bed debts to the health authorities, including £71,000 in Paddington and North Kensington, for people who had already got advantaged treatment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the number of patients cared for in London has been rising steadily? For example, the number of day cases in inner London went up from 48,000 to nearly 80,000 between 1982 and 1986 and the number of

accident emergency attendances has increased. Does he agree that for many years, including 1986, inner London has had twice the number of acute beds per thousand of the population as the rest of the country and twice the number of consultants and junior doctors?

Mr. Hughes: Very good. The Minister's colleagues are easily deceived. Of course the figures are true, but many people who have received health care in London come from outside. Also, many of the people covered by the Department's throughput appear twice or more in the figures because they were discharged so quickly that they had to go back to hospital. The figures are not all different people. They are the same people, often the elderly, who were sent home and readmitted. They could not stay in hospital to convalesce, because the beds were needed for other people to leap into as soon as they were pushed out.
The private sector has benefited. Private sector recruitment has grown at the expense of the Health Service. Beveridge and Nye Bevan sought to provide not a Health Service that would be selectively available for those who could pay, but a Health Service for all, free at the point of delivery.
In social services there is exactly the same crisis in London, with 600 suspected victims of child abuse not getting professional help because there are no social workers to help them.
In education, before the Government's reforms the borough of Westminster pays 27 per cent. of the bill for ILEA but receives only 6·5 per cent. of the available money. After abolition, Westminster will have a massive windfall to spend on three county secondary schools whereas a borough like Greenwich which pays 2·5 per cent. spends 10·3 per cent. and, like Tower Hamlets and Hackney, will have to pay massively more.
I will end where I began, with the homeless. Last year, there were 30,000 registered homeless in greater London. The number had gone up by 75 per cent. in five years. That excluded the 10,000 in hostels, the 12,500 who were squatting, the 2,000 approximately who were sleeping rough, and many who were staying temporarily with friends. There were about 64,000 homeless people in the capital city last year.
Houses are being built in my borough, but at an average price of £80,000, where the average income in only £8,000. There is not much prospect of many of the homeless, let alone the homeless who are out of work, getting accommodation. There are more than 1·5 people per room in many homes in many boroughs—Kensington and Chelsea, Southwark, Camden and Haringey first among them.
The reality of Britain today is that the challenge that Beveridge, Nye Bevan, Lloyd George and others sought to put before the country has been grossly neglected by the Conservative Government. Beveridge, who was a resident of Kensington, where he had his first home—

Mr. Tony Banks: Had he a vote?

Mr. Hughes: He did have a vote to begin with, but not there when he became a Member of Parliament. He said:
Liberals believe that our guiding force should not be self-interest or class conflict but the determination not to rest while any are condemned to want, disease, squalor, ignorance or unemployment.
That resident of Kensington would not have been voting Conservative in Kensington on Thursday, nor anywhere


else in London, because the challenge which he gave us has been grossly neglected by this increasingly divisive and self-interested Tory Government.

Mr. David Evennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his excellent speech, which was not only thought-provoking and interesting, but put the case fairly and squarely for London as it is today. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) would at least listen for once, not only because it would be courteous, but because it would be educational for her.
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would not give way to me. I was appalled at how frightened he seemed to be, and also distressed at his view. He seemed to suggest that he would have preferred a derelict wilderness in docklands. We all know that docklands had died and needed to be rejuvenated. Many people who work in docklands are grateful for the development that has taken place, because they have jobs in an area where there were no jobs before.
I am delighted that today we are having a debate on London. As a London Member, I believe that we have too few debates on our great capital. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is of a similar opinion. I am disappointed and surprised, because the Opposition motion does not give a true picture of London today. I am a Londoner, having always lived in Greater London. I worked in London and I represent an outer London constituency. My parents were Cockneys, born in Bow in the 1920s. I know what things were like in their early years in east London. My grandparents also came from Bow, and throughout my life I have heard of the real hardship, suffering and deprivation in London in the 1920s.

Ms. Abbott: Not now, of course.

Mr. Evennett: Again the hon. Lady is not willing to listen to my speech, although she has already made hers. That is symptomatic of what is wrong with the politics of London from the Left. They are unwilling to listen to the points of view of other people who were also born in London and who have been involved in Hackney. I shall give the hon. Lady a few lessons on that in a moment. She seems to be living in the past. She seems to glory in the past, and she refuses to look at the present and the future.
We are looking to the future for London. No one pretends that everything is perfect in London, because it is not. We accept that there is homelessness and deprivation in the capital city. We want to try to improve the position and change the lot of those who are homeless.

Ms. Abbott: How?

Mr. Evennett: I shall make my own speech in my own time without comment.

Mr. James Pawsey: And a very good speech it is.

Mr. Evennett: The Opposition do not like it. There are more ordinary Londoners on these Benches than on the Opposition side.
I was involved in Hackney in the 1970s. I was a parliamentary candidate in 1979, and I was a school manager and governor in the borough of Hackney from 1976 to 1980. I was distressed by the standard of education that was provided in Hackney at that time. [Interruption.] was a teacher in outer London, but I was a governor of a number of Hackney schools and I was a school manager. I was appalled at how ILEA had allowed the children of Hackney to receive inferior education. I could not believe that children who in the past had had good schools had no passport to a good future because of the poor education being provided in Hackney.
The position in the 1980s is even worse than it was in the 1970s, and for that reason ILEA's abolition will be good for Hackney, for the children of Hackney and for inner London in general. Much money was spent on ILEA and on Hackney schools, but to little effect, and the children there were left without a decent education. That is one of the real deprivations in London, but it is a problem that the Opposition will not face. Under Labour control ILEA has failed the children of London, and Hackney is a classic example of where that has occurred.
My own home borough of Bexley is Conservative-controlled and provides excellent education, whereas neighbouring Greenwich is under ILEA control. A number of parents from Greenwich come to see me, wanting their children to be educated in Bexley schools because the standards there are better. That cannot be right. It must be unfair to Greenwich children that they are receiving an inferior education. The Government have put forward many policies to improve the lot of children and of education. which must be welcomed.
In the matter of housing, there is a chapter of woe to be read about many London areas. Many Londoners wanted to buy their own council homes, but only the Conservative Government allowed them to realise that ambition. Opposition Members were not interested in the aspirations of those ordinary people and voted against council house sales, yet those sales have been a tremendous success story. People now have an opportunity to do as they want with their own home and no longer have to conform to the painted front door that the council insisted they had. That is what the Government offered them.
Not everyone can own his home, and there is still an important place for the public housing sector, which we believe is right. However, we cannot support that sector—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington did not mention this either—when, as was the case in Hackney for many years, councils will not sell off large areas of derelict land for development. It is no use the hon. Lady complaining 10 years later that there are not enough council houses, when part of the reason for that is that in the 1970s Hackney council refused to sell land for development, to provide more homes.
We hear also of the number of empty council houses in Greater London. The public would be appalled if they knew that there are about 30,000 empty council dwellings in Greater London. That is scandalous. The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington mentioned the


homeless. In Greater London there are about 30,000 empty homes. Something must be very wrong, and we ought not tolerate such a situation.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that one can interpret statistics in any way one likes, but the fact remains that most people living in the capital are enjoying a higher standard of living than ever before. There will always be a less fortunate minority, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) reminded the House that the poor are always with us and that they should receive the help that they need.
However, the vast majority of people, at whatever level and whatever their income, are better off now than they have ever been. I refer not only to their income but to their status. A higher percentage of households include in their possessions the so-called luxuries of life, such as tumble driers, washing machines and television sets. We welcome that and would like to see more and more people enjoying such possessions. We do not want to depress the number of people who already have them, but wish to elevate those who do not, so that everyone may enjoy a better standard of living.
Over the past decade most Londoners have enjoyed advances in their living standards and quality of life. More has to be done, and action is being proposed by the Government—but only by the Government. It would be disastrous just to throw more money at the problems that exist, because that will not solve anything. What is required is an investment in housing, education and employment. As ILEA has shown, throwing money at problems does not bring results. We must pursue instead a constructive programme, which is something that the Government are doing.
The Opposition motion proves that the Labour party is out of date and out of touch. It is out of touch with reality, out of touch with the wishes of the people of London, and out of touch with 1988. I look forward to the Government's reforms for dealing with those London areas that require urgent attention. When the Education Reform Bill, the community charge, housing reform and so on, are on the statute book and operational, more of London's problems will be attacked and solved. We shall not see that being done by following the lines of the Opposition motion. It is a trip into yesterday, and yesterday is history. We are looking instead to the future, for all of London's people.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: When a proper audit is undertaken of the effect of the Government's policies on the people of London, the indictment will be devastating. The Government will be condemned for promoting the ethic of greed and self-interest as foundation stones for our society. It is an ethic based on the pauperisation of the many to enhance the wealth of the few. I hesitate to use even the word "ethic" to describe a set of values that are so uncaring, so damaging and so complacent that the Prime Minister could stand at the Dispatch Box one month ago and say:
Everyone in the nation has benefited from the increased prosperity."—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 796.]
It is obvious that the Government are applying their usual technique for dealing with a problem, and have redefined the word "everyone". To be included in the Prime Minister's concept of "everyone", one must be more than a citizen of this country. It means also having a job,

owning a car and a house, having shares, and paying for private health care. As Orwell would have appreciated, "everyone" really means being part of an elite.
"Everyone" does not include those without a job, those who do not own a valuable property, or the young forced to live a nomadic life moving from one bed-and-breakfast place to another. Neither does it include YTS trainees stuck on a scheme, the women who are struggling on income support, or the many of my constituents who have not seen any "prosperity". Instead, those people are by all means possible to vanish from the statistics, from the benefit system, and ultimately even from the electoral register—thus relieving the Government of any burden of responsibility.
In their deconstruction and redefinition of society, the Government are undertaking the task of taking apart the welfare state, that symbol of collective provision. In its place they have resurrected the concept of the individual within the family as an ideal social unit. If I understand the theory properly, it follows that those units are to operate within the free market, creating wealth that then results in the abolition of poverty as the incomes of the poor are pulled up by economic growth. That has not worked in the past, and it is not working now.
The Prime Minister recently enunciated the requisite moral values that underpin this organisation of society: self-reliance, personal responsibility, good neighbourliness and generosity. According to her, those are traditional values of British life which have been undermined by state intervention to a point of moral crisis. We have had nine years in which to assess the validity of those beliefs. All the figures show that, far from abolishing poverty, the Government's policies are widening the gulf between the rich and the poor. There is a liberalising state structure for the rich, but an increasingly authoritarian structure for the poor, in which the state polices their activities and punishes them for their poverty.
I rarely agree with the Prime Minister, but I agree that people want self-reliance, self-respect and responsibility. All my constituents want those things, but it is an act of cynicism and hypocrisy to praise such values on the one hand and on the other to push through a range of policies designed to constrict and stifle people's independence and freedom. It is clear that just as "everyone" means only some, true self-reliance and independence are to be available only to the rich.
This year's Budget was a clear example of that, favouring the rich at the expense of the poor. The Chancellor's £6 billion handout was apportioned thus: 31 per cent. for those with incomes already over £50,000 and 2 per cent. for those with incomes under £5,000. Do the Ministers sitting opposite me really not believe that that reflects the growing divide in this capital city? The Budget was a blatant example of the Government's basic strategy of increasing the earnings of the highly paid as an incentive, while at the same time holding down the wages of the low paid through deregulation of employment, job schemes linked to low pay and the constant fear of unemployment.
In Lewisham, we see at first hand how Government policies are accentuating the divide in our society. There, the divide has widened. A recent study conducted by Goldsmiths' college shows that, across a wide range of indices, poverty and deprivation are increasing. One in eight people are still unemployed, and in some of my wards 40 per cent. of young people are without work. Two in five


households receive housing benefit and 32,000 receive income support. Lewisham and Deptford in particular rank high among authorities with one-parent families, overcrowded conditions, a lack of amenities and single-pensioner households—which, combined with the loss of manufacturing jobs and a decaying environment, has led to multiple deprivation and an increase in poverty. I defy Conservative Members, two of whom also represent Lewisham, to say that that is not the case, and that constituents have not come to their surgeries complaining of such problems.
In such circumstances, the local authority plays a vital role in providing services and support. But Lewisham, of course, is rate-capped and has been for years, by a Government whose prime motive is not to help individuals and communities to improve their lives, but to silence and marginalise a dissenting voice. Nowhere has the Government's fight against Labour authorities hurt our community more than in the cuts imposed on social services in Lewisham: cuts that affect the quality of life for all except the ultra-rich.
None of us—home owners, dual-income families or even yuppies—can be sure that we will never need our social services departments. The private health scheme and the private school soon abdicate responsibility for the most acute problems. To meet the budget constraints imposed by the Government, Lewisham's social services department has had to close two homes for the elderly, two children's homes, two day centres for the active elderly and a holiday centre that catered for no fewer than 1,800 people a year.
Where is the freedom, dignity and personal responsibility allowed to those people and their families? They have paid all their lives for that provision, and the Government are denying it to them. Such people do not seek an act of charity; they seek the community rights of the society that we used to enjoy. In every aspect of Government policy, there has been a deliberate acceleration and legitimising of the two-tier society.
The Government have long promoted the idea of a property-owning democracy geared towards owner-occupation for those who can afford it and rented accommodation for those who cannot. But my constituents have an average income equal to only two thirds of that in the south-east as a whole. Most of them will never be able to purchase even a one-bedroomed flat with today's escalating London prices. Many must therefore rely on public sector housing, which the Government have starved of funds since 1979.
Why are the Government so determined to destroy publicly owned, affordable housing in London? Why are they determined to make second-class citizens of people who work in jobs that do not happen to finance a £50,000 mortgage? Against all those odds, Lewisham council cannot deal with the problems of homelessness and bad housing. Its housing investment allocation for this year is only £18 million. If that programme were being funded at the same level as in 1979, it would have received £70 million. Where does the fault lie but with the Government?
Nowhere is the problem more acute than in our tower blocks—cruel monuments indeed to middle-class architects who would never have chosen to live in them. Such is the present housing shortage that people who obtain

their first flat in such a block are condemned to stay there when they start a family, because Lewisham council is allowed no new building. How many Conservative Members would care to struggle up 13, 14 or 15 floors with 18-month-old twins and the shopping when the lift is out of order? Why should people who pay their rents and are prepared to be independent be penalised because the Government will not allow the council money to repair their blocks?
Let me now turn to education. In Lewisham, parents, governors and teachers are resisting a proposal to turn the Haberdasher's Aske's schools into a city technology college. Such colleges were intended to be financed by industry to provide young people with a technological education. They are to exist entirely outside the state system, and their implicit role is to be that of the elitist school. They are to have funds to pay for better equipment and higher salaries for teachers. They will take our education back into the two-tier system.
It is rumoured that the Government are prepared to put £4 million into the creation of a CTC in Deptford—£4 million to destroy effective comprehensive education in that area, where real equality of opportunity has been constructed through a five-school consortium. Yet again, we see elitism triumph over the provision of education for all. When I see the willingness of the Government to pour money into projects such as the CTC, which will benefit only a minority, I know that Conservative Members have no wish to close the growing divide in London.
Last week, the Prince of Wales visited Deptford and praised the efforts of the people there, as he put it, to break "this terrible vicious circle" of deprivation. I echo his praise. I hope that the Government will stop blaming the poor for being poor and will take on board the many expressions of concern being voiced about the effects of polarisation of rich and poor. I bleieve that the Government, who ally themselves closely to a policy of self-interest and promotion of the rich at the expense of the poor, are coming dangerously close to authoritarianism.
In my constituency, the ideas and initiatives that are still to be found in our schools, community projects and workplaces are a tribute to the energy and enthusiasm that motivate people to improve their lives, despite the Government's indifference and active obstruction. Whatever the entreaties of Conservative Members and Ministers, we will continue to join those people in their struggle for self-improvement, better communities and better environments. We live among them and travel on public transport and see what is happening. We know that the squalor of our environment is not due to our neglect or the neglect of our councils, but to the policies of the Government. I commend to the House the motion in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). However, let the House not listen to what they say, but watch what the Socialists and Liberals do. I have lived and taught in Tower Hamlets, and I have taught in London schools for 23 years. Twelve of them were in the King's Cross area and seven were in deprived parts of


Lewisham. There were children of 95 nationalities. I take no lessons in deprivation or knowledge of ethnic minorities from Liberals or Socialists.
I remind the House that between them the Liberal party and the Labour party have controlled local government in Tower Hamlets for nearly 90 years. Billions of pounds of public money has been poured into that community, but one sees a concrete jungle of deprivation, unimaginatively and badly planned housing and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said, communities destroyed by the corrupt administrations that we have seen over the years. We have seen appalling planning and people not being consulted.
I know from experience—I have fought three general elections in east London——

Mr. Tony Banks: How did the hon. Gentleman get on?

Mr. Greenway: Very well. When I went to speak in the docks against Jack Dash and others, often with the Bishop of Stepney, then Trevor Huddleston, I did not see the Socialist Member of Parliament.
In that society in the east end there is no grass, except for that around the high-rise blocks. There are concrete playgrounds for children, and if they want to play soccer they have to play on concrete. All recreational facilities are concrete. That area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate reminded us, used to be full of fine open green spaces. That is Socialism and Liberalism at work. The hon. Member for Deptford believes what she said, but that is not the way that Socialism works in practice.
The homeless have been much discussed in the debate so far. I shall tell the hon. Member for Deptford about the homeless in the London borough of Ealing. When the present Labour council took control in May 1986 there were 30 families on the homeless register, costing the people of Ealing £300,000 a year. The council promptly abolished residence points, which took away the right to be housed, from people born and bred in the borough and who had lived there for two years or more. It sucked in all sorts of people from all over the country and all over the world who had no relationship with Ealing. Within a year there were 1,000 people on the waiting list, at a cost of £13 million or £14 million. If two homosexuals are living together and then quarrel and decide to part, the council believes that they must be housed separately, so that uses two housing units. That is but one example of why there is an increased need for housing.

Ms. Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. Let her go back to Cambridge. She did not give way to anybody.
That is one of the ways in which homelessness and the demand for housing has increased. The Labour party needs to think about what it has done to the people.
Homeless people come to see me in my surgery.—[Interruption.] I have at least one surgery every week, sometimes two and sometimes I have a surgery every day. Those people will give me addresses of properties that have been empty for two years or more. They say, "Can I have that home? Will you write to the director of housing?" Somebody told me about a house that had been empty for three years. I wrote to the director of housing some seven months ago and asked for that home to be allocated to a

lady. He wrote back and told me that it was already allocated. Three months later the lady came back to see me and said that there was still nobody living in it, so I tried again. Three months later the lady came back again and said that there still nobody in it. I have just written again to the director of housing, but I shall get the same answer. That needs to be sorted out. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for tackling that problem.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I shall give way once to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is very decent of you. Harry.
No Opposition Member would defend a system whereby empty council properties are kept empty because a council does not know that the property is empty. One understands that that happens. However, will the hon. Gentleman accept that 72 per cent. of all empty properties in Greater London are in the private sector? The largest number, in percentage terms, are owned by Government Departments.

Mr. Greenway: I am not talking about council properties where the council does not know that they are empty. I have given an example in which the council was told by me that a property was empty, and I was being rung daily by people who wanted to move into the property. The councils know which properties are empty. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to mislead the House and it is mischievous of him to do so. I am sure that he does not mean it.
I have visited the Embankment homeless regularly in the worst of winters. A great deal of insincere cant is talked about those people. The truth is that many of them have refused to go into accommodation. That is not to say that I condone the fact that anyone is in that position. I have attempted on many occasions to persuade people to get out of that situation. Sometimes, even in the most bitter weather, one cannot persuade them to go into hostel accommodation, which I find for them. During the terrible winter before last I suggested, both in the House and outside, to anyone who was interested that we should do something. I said, "Open your halls, open this and that and take them in." I explained that those people would die outside on those terrible nights. Only the Salvation Army responded. What a fine job it does. It has a right to speak about the problem, but that does not apply to many Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
Learned articles in The Sunday Times, The Observer, and other reputable newspapers and journals have described people who own cars and have petrol allowances as being in poverty. One has to be honest when one talks about poverty. If one investigates the word "poverty" in the Oxford Dictionary, it is clear that someone who is in poverty has absolutely nothing—virtually no food to eat, virtually no clothes to wear and no home. We are not talking about poverty in London in those terms, and it is hypocrisy for the Labour party to table a motion in such terms. I hope that the House will reject it strongly and thoroughly.
A very serious form of poverty is poverty through education. It has been said in Ealing, it has been said by the Labour party today, and I have heard it said by many Socialists, that one must not push children of a single


parent, or children from ethnic minority backgrounds, especially if they are poor, because they are deprived and cannot take the pressure. One cannot do children a bigger disservice than to push such a policy.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr Greenway: No, I shall not give way.
If ever children need extra help and pressure to succeed it is the children of single parents, and children from deprived backgrounds, whether they are white or from an ethnic minority background. We have heard such sentimentalism from the Labour party in London and elsewhere for many years.
I have marked the examination papers of such children at CSE and O-level—not at A-level, as they did not get that far—for many years. Their lack of a good grasp of English shows that they have not been pushed in the way that they could have been pushed and their grasp of the language improved. Such an improvement would have enabled them to write better examination papers and they would have been better equipped for work. That serious deprivation has emanated from parts of the ILEA and from other Labour authorities.
For 20 years, the education of children in secondary schools in London was secondary to the reorganisation plans of the ILEA and the old LCC, which wanted to create a unitary system of education which they hoped would produce a flank of Socialists right across London and lead to the end of Conservatism. The education of those children was secondary to that political aim. That was disgraceful and should not be forgotten. That generation will be deprived for life, and that is well known.
Finally, rates have rightly been mentioned in the debate. Let us examine what the Labour party does in power, and consider the rates damage in Ealing. In Ealing last year the Labour council increased rates by 65 per cent. Poor people, old people and deprived people went without food to pay their rates. For some of them, that huge increase cost hundreds of pounds in a year. In addition, the rates on factories went up and there was a £500,000 rates increase for Ealing hospital—that from a party that cares so much about the sick and about the NHS.
To take one example, the £750,000 rates increase for Lyons in Greenford meant that the price of tea, Ready Brek, ice cream, puddings and so on went up.

Mr. Tony Banks: Nonsense.

Mr. Greenway: Where could it find £750,000, other than from increased prices? Some employees also lost their jobs. My constituents have been struggling to pay a 65 per cent. rates increase and the higher cost of tea and food.

Ms. Ruddock: rose——

Mr. John Fraser: rose——

Mr. Greenway: No, I shall not give way. I have given way once and I shall not give way again.
Even the price of hair cuts went up by 50p. What a way to run a borough.
If I have not got my point across to Opposition Members, may I stress that within the past month Ealing council, which has £192 million to spend, compared with £151 million only two years ago—an increase of £41

million—has stopped all discretionary grants to pay for an extension or an extra downstairs lavatory for disabled people in Ealing. That is wicked.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is also not true.

Mr. Greenway: It is absolutely true. It has not been denied. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. I have council letters to prove it.
A family in Costons avenue, Greenford, with two severely disabled sons aged 23 and 20, need downstairs accommodation for them. They negotiated a grant and worked out with an architect what was needed and were all ready to go. But that grant has been stopped by a council which does not care a damn about the disabled. Those two young men still cannot live at home. It cares only about its own equality policy. It will put on a party costing £1,000 for lesbians with the Hot Doris band, but it will not give grants to disabled people who need them.
There are fewer home helps, and those who need them get them less regularly. The council has allowed people to be violated by unchecked invasions of gipsies—in one area, 12 times in three months. That is the extent of the mis-spending in Ealing. The council is seeking to put a second playground next to a perfectly good existing playground, in Perivale park, at a cost of £16,000. It spends millions of pounds on Labour party propaganda in "Voices", its own magazine, and in other ways.
People in Ealing were very pleased when the Secretary of State for the Environment rate-capped Ealing for the current year and rates were forced down by 25 per cent., but they are trembling in their shoes because Ealing is not rate-capped for next year. Just to stand still, rates will go up by a minimum of 50 per cent., and they will probably go up a great deal more. That is Socialism. That is what a so-called caring Socialist party, or SLD party, means in practice. Let the House know about it, and let it throw out the motion this evening.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made a speech which seemed to owe more to his imagination than to reality. I grew up in Tower Hamlets, and before the war most people there lived in the most dreadful hovels. The council housing that he decried was the biggest slum-clearance scheme in Europe. The people who received a council house received a new life. At that time the caring Tories were saying, "It is no use giving working people a bath; they will only put coal in it." That way of thinking still exists today.
Tower Hamlets is one of the poorest boroughs in London, and certainly in England, and, according to figures published in 1984, 70 per cent. of households survive on £6,000 per annum. Conservative Members should think about what that means, if their imaginations will take them that far. The link between poverty and ill health has now been proven. While richer London boroughs, such as Bromley and Sutton, have death rates comparable with those in Europe and the United States of America—the richer countries in the world—the death rate for men in the poorer parts of Tower Hamlets is comparable with those in Uruguay and Argentina. The standard mortality rate for Tower Hamlets is the highest in London.
Professor Peter Townsend, a social scientist of world renown, recently condemned the Government for pursuing policies that promoted poverty, and therefore ill health. His words have been illustrated dramatically by the report of the Social Services Select Committee which is published today, the majority on which, as hon. Members know, are Conservative Members. The Observer says that the report shows:
The number claiming means-tested state benefits has climbed from 4·4 million, when Mrs. Thatcher first took office, to 8·2 million.
That is nearly double. The report says:
another million live below the level of meagre benefits but do not claim.
The Government's policies have doubled the number of people who live in dire poverty. The result is early and untimely death for many of my constituents. I can justifiably say that, because of that, the Thatcher Government's policies are annihilation policies for many people.
Time after time, the Government utter pious words about the Health Service and how the health of our people is safe in their hands, but a healthy population cannot be achieved just by tinkering with the NHS. That view was expressed most eloquently by the British Medical Association Board of Science and Education report of 1987, entitled, "Deprivation and Ill Health," which says:
No amount of redistribution of resources within the health and social security sector will resolve the health problems caused by deprivation. Increased resources for housing, work creation, income support, education and health and social services are needed although low cost initiatives are possible which will alleviate the health experience of some disadvantaged groups. The problem is so great and so entrenched within these structures of society as to be insoluble without significant diversion of public resources.
It is such a significant diversion of public resources that the Government constantly refuse to make, whether to health and social services or to anything else. As a result, the problems are perpetuated.

Mr. Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend is right when she says that the Government refuse to give figures about deprivation. They gave what they called the Z scores index of multiple deprivation on the 1981 census, which showed that 11 out of 12 areas in London were deprived and that 16 out of the 24 most deprived areas were in London. Those are the Department of the Environment's calculations of deprivation.

Ms. Gordon: I am grateful for that information.
The divide is widening. I should like to give the Government's own figures. The Department of Employment family expenditure survey for 1980 to 1986 shows changes in gross household incomes at 1985 prices. Between 1979—a significant date for poor people—and 1985, the income of the bottom decile—10 per cent.—fell by 10 per cent., and the income of the bottom quartile—25 per cent.—fell by 7 per cent. During the same period, the income of the top decile rose by 10 per cent. and the income of the top quartile rose by 12 per cent. It is therefore clear from the Government's figures that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer.
The figures for Greater London are even worse. The income of the bottom decile fell by 17 per cent. and that of the bottom quartile by 8 per cent. The income of the top decile rose by 12 per cent. and that of the top quartile by 18 per cent. So much for prosperity! The rich got their

share, but the incomes of the poor deteriorated. That problem has been exacerbated by the Budget, but the Government hide what they do not like. They have now stopped compiling the figures in the form that I have just mentioned, so comparisons can no longer be made.
Yesterday, the Minister for Housing and Planning announced that a housing action trust will be set up in Tower Hamlets. People were shocked to hear that announcement, even before the Housing Bill has gone through Parliament. Council tenants are in ferment, and have been since they first heard of the Housing Bill.
It has been asserted today that nobody cared about the Greater London council being abolished. Poor people in Tower Hamlets cared very much. The GLC built excellent houses in the borough and the Inner London education authority has cared about children's education there. People's right to elect whom they please to run their schools and to build council dwellings has been eroded by the Government.
The people of Tower Hamlets feel that the Government have declared war on Londoners—they have abolished the GLC and they propose to abolish ILEA. My mailbag reflects the dreadful fear of old people in Tower Hamlets that they will lose their homes. I receive many letters asking whether the Government will prevent them from living out their old age in the council flats where they have lived for years. They see the safety net being ripped from under them. The outlook is grim. They see ward and hospital closures and the education authority being destroyed. Benefits are being cut. Their circumstances are getting worse rather than better.
Conservative Members are in cloud-cuckoo-land when it comes to what is happening in poor areas. Those who go to Bethnal Green tube station will see women and small children begging. I have not seen that in the east end since the 1920s. That is the pass that the very poorest people have come to, and it is a disgrace for one of the major cities in the world in one of the richest countries in the world.
The Government's game of dividing communities to deflect attention from their policies works for just so long. In my maiden speech a little over one year ago, I said that Londoners in the east end will fight back. They are beginning to rally to do just that. The London Docklands development corporation taught those people a sharp lesson. They saw that dictatorship being set up and public money being poured in, but there was a net loss of jobs and increased unemployment. They saw houses being built, but for £200,000, which they could never afford. They knew that it was not to benefit them.
They now know a quango when they see one, and the housing action trust will be just the sort of dictatorship in housing that the LDDC has been in docklands.
They are reacting violently against it, and they regard the HAT as a con trick. First, the rate support grant was taken away; our taxes were stolen; then Tower Hamlets was rate-capped and it was announced on Thursday that it would be rate-capped again. So there is no money for repairs. Then the Government say that the estates are in a state of disrepair so they will take away the democratic right of the elected authority to handle them and put them in the hands of an appointed quango.
A few weeks ago, the new rich who have moved into Tower Hamlets on the Isle of Dogs held a charity ball to raise money for the London hospital—at £200 a ticket. Local people were shocked. That is the divide between rich and poor, between people living on less than £6,000 a year


and those who have moved in and can afford £200 a night. The local people do not want their hospitals funded in that way. They had enough of charity hospitals before the war, and that does not please them one bit.
I am reminded that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), writing in the Sunday Telegraph a few weeks ago, said that we must honour the philanthropists of the past century who provided money to build schools, hospitals and workhouses. The people of Tower Hamlets are not going back to the workhouse. The Government have a workhouse mentality and workhouse aspirations for the poor of this country.
There is a ferment in Tower Hamlets. Last week a local tenants' meeting was held on a small estate. We thought it would bring out about 40 people—but they had to shut the doors because 800 people turned up from all around. On Thursday the tenants' federation is calling a meeting to discuss what to do. I warn the Government that in Tower Hamlets anyone who lives near the river, or a canal, park or any other desirable natural space feels threatened. They believe that their houses will be grabbed, that they will be squeezed out and that the new HAT will eventually cause rents to go up so that they will not be able to afford to pay them and will have to leave. They will be pushed out by people who now find the area desirable for various reasons that we all know well.
I warn the Government that they have been pushing people too far. An explosive situation is building up in east London. People are saying that they will fight to defend their homes and that Government policies will not help them. Their lives have become much worse since 1979, and they are in no doubt about that.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) was reading a newspaper—he is still doing it now, or perhaps he is eating his chips off it.
I see that only two Conservative Members representing London constituencies are present. Does that not show a contempt for the problems of London?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I was working on the assumption that if an hon. Member was reading a newspaper he was preparing his speech, but I remind the House that in other circumstances it is not in order to read newspapers.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I want to make three brief points. First, I want to challenge the nature of what we are debating. We are discussing the gap between the rich and the poor, and we have been told by Opposition Members that it has widened. On the face of it, that seems a reasonable proposition. Opposition Members have produced statistics to back it up—even Members on the Opposition Front Bench, who seem to have spent all afternoon playing musical chairs, coming and going and not listening much to the debate.
People want a reasonable society with a sense of justice and fair play, so the remarks of Opposition Members might strike a chord. But they are not based on reality. To believe what Opposition Members have said, one would have to believe that the mere existence of some who are

wealthy impoverishes people with less money—and I do not believe that. There are people in parts of my constituency who live in the stockbroker belt, earn substantial incomes, possess Rolls-Royces and live in houses that are worth anything up to £1 million. That compares with my income as an hon. Member and the rather more modest house that I live in. So one would have to believe, to follow Opposition Members' arguments, that the existence of such people impoverishes me, which is not true.
Neither has this ever been true of London. London has always been a patchwork quilt of poor and wealthy areas co-existing. But to say that because more people are wealthy in London others are impoverished is nonsense. Opposition Members know it is nonsense; more importantly, the people of London know it is and will not fall for it.

Mr. Corbyn: Exactly what useful work did those stockbrokers do to gain their enormous wealth, other than to exploit the people who work in industry, to take their money away and to make no useful contribution to society? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the working people of London are so stupid as not to realise that stockbrokers are parasites?

Mr. Hughes: That remark is part of the pattern. Perhaps to try to keep its spirits up, the Labour party tries to make us believe that areas of London that used to be Labour's strongholds, such as Walthamstow and Battersea—and Leyton soon—are giving increasing numbers of votes to the Conservatives because so-called yuppies are moving into them. But canvassing in working-class areas contradicts that notion. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is an ex-Labour stronghold which now has a 15,000 Conservative majority, which was created not by yuppies or stockbrokers but by people on council estates who had been lifelong Labour voters but came over to the Conservatives.
What is the legacy of Labour in London? In places such as Tower Hamlets, the Labour party deliberately created a captive vote. It set out to control from the council the vast majority of housing in an area, and what a terrible job it made of that control. The party thought that the only way to build political control was to own property. It was warned about that in the last part of the last century. It was told that it should not control the votes of the people and collect their rents.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Who said that?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should look at the works of Mrs. Hill, who created the National Trust. He should also learn something about London, instead of interrupting the debate in his broad Glaswegian accent. Those of us who were born and brought up in London and know a great deal about it know that the Labour party prospered for some time in Tower Hamlets only by making promises to people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) has talked about the phenomenon in 1949 and I should like to talk about it 30 years after that. The phenomenon was that of Labour councillors standing outside polling stations telling people to give them their vote and they would make sure that they got another flat. But they never had any intention of doing


that or of keeping up the maintenance of the properties. That is why, in the end, those properties were taken away from them.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Like me, my hon. Friend has fought general elections in east London. Labour Members will not like it, but what he says is true. I have seen Labour councillors walking down streets and canvassing, and I have heard them say to people, "Who got you that flat? Be there next Thursday." That is corruption.

Mr. Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member has just walked in, straight from the bar. He knows nothing about London, and I shall not give way.
This debate is about political control. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning made an announcement about housing action trusts. Listening to what was said yesterday and what is being said today by Opposition Members would make one assume that the maintenance problems in the areas that have become subject to HATs are a result of what the Government have done, and the money that they have taken away. However, anyone who knew the Ocean estate or any of the areas that are being talked about during the 1970s knows that they were the pits then. They know that Tower Hamlets could not control them. and that the council did not even know what it owned. It left properties empty, it did not maintain the lifts, and the staircases were a disgrace and dangerous—and all that was in the Labour 1970s. It is the same now; that is why they need to be taken out of the control of Labour authorities, which have deliberately kept people in poverty and badly maintained estates in order to maintain their political control.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I have already given way quite a lot.
A particular problem has arisen in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, and it concerns those Bengali families who were declared to be intentionally homeless by the SLDP-dominated council. I am in somewhat of a quandary because I do not know whom to blame. Last week, I was talking to a Bengali gentleman in Spitalfields after a large meeting that I had addressed. Perhaps I should blame the Labour council, which left him, his family and another family in the same one flat since 1973, refusing to rehouse them. I do not know whether it is the well-known racialism of the Tower Hamlets Labour party, which goes back such a long way, that is to blame. Is it the SLDP council, which has taken the disgraceful step of treating people who are in this country legally and who are entitled to be here and who want to be rehoused as if they could be put back on boats? That is the SLDP in action, and I challenge the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to distance himself from what the Tower Hamlets council has done.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member knows my view. I disagree with, and disassociate myself from, that decision. However, on other housing matters, the council has made substantial progress and it believes that it could put much of the housing stock into good condition before the next borough elections.

Mr. Hughes: Those are the weasel and mealy-mouthed words that we hear from SLDP spokesmen all the time.

The reality in Tower Hamlets is that 3,500 properties are empty. Organisations helping the homeless say that they could bring many of those properties back into use within weeks and use them to house local homeless families. The SLDP council is keeping people out of these houses. It is deliberately taking an attitude towards Bengali families that I can only describe as racist. That is the real gap between rich and poor, and it has not been caused by the Government. They are trying to do something about it with the HATs and allowing opting out under the provisions of the Housing Bill. The people who are responsible are those sitting on the Opposition Benches, and at least one word of apology would help.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The argument in the House today is not so much about whether there is inequality of opportunity in London as about who is responsible for it. I see this inequality every day in Greenwich. We have already heard many statistics, and I do not propose to add to them. I shall draw the attention of the House to some of the human consequences of this inequality.
Let us assume that all babies born in Greenwich today are born equal. However, by the time that they are only a few weeks old the inequality of opportunities that they face will be manifest. The first inequality that they will face comes when they go home. They go to estates such as Springfield Grove, Cherry Orchards, Mascalls Court and the Ferrier. Those are all pretty sounding names, but they are not pretty places in which to live. They are often damp, cold, miserable and concrete. They are overcrowded and subject to intolerable noise. Violence and crime are common, and dirt is just taken for granted.
I have heard a typical example of what happens, although the results of this example are rather more extreme than others. Earlier this year I received the following letter:
Dear Rosie Barnes,
I am writing to you about the letter I got on the 3rd February. Does it mean that I am not going to get rehoused because I don't think I can take this place much more.
It is so cold and my children are so bad that they will not settle down now and not sleeping. I have been up day and night for a month. The Hat is getting very bad now. Every time it rains or snows it comes in and my children are still not well.
I received a subsequent letter from that woman two or three months later, in which she said:
Thank you for your letter you sent to me. I am writing to you to let you know that I have had my baby. I had him on the 4th March. He has got a cold allready and he is only 6 days old. So now I have three kids with colds.
I wrote to Greenwich council, and received a reply, which said:
I refer to your enquiry … This family now have a total of 26 points which, as you know, is far below the level required for rehousing. As previously reported, no medical priority has been awarded to this family.
On 13 June, I received a letter from the same woman, who said:
I am writing to let you know that I had my baby. He was born on the 4th March but he died on the 16th May.
That was not the first unexpected child death that I had been told about in my short time as Member of Parliament for Greenwich. It happens often to children who are taken home to these appalling estates. They have no chance, if they do not have a decent home, of growing up healthy


and free from asthma and bronchitis. They should at least have a warm start in life. Warmth would be a step in the right direction.
Poverty is the next big battle that these families face. Housing benefit has been cut and the poll tax in Greenwich is expected to be £500 or £600 a year per person.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Waldegrave): The hon Lady has rightly outlined a number of problems that poor families have to face. Another problem is racism, which we have discussed in the debate. Both sides of the House will, I think, agree that to some extent this is a by-election debate. I should be interested to know the hon. Lady's view of her party's candidate in the by-election, who has been putting material through my letter box saying that the Notting Hill carnival, which I happen to enjoy, should be banned. Does she stand by that policy?

Mrs. Barnes: I stand by the policy that the candidate has set out, which is that the carnival should not continue unless it is made safe. I strongly deny any allegation of racism against the SDP candidate in the by-election. The fact that he has a black adopted daughter should go some way to allay the Minister's fears. That was an outrageous intervention.
Housing benefits and the poll tax will take their toll of the already limited income of poor families in Greenwich. Money for food and fuel bills will be even harder to find and the families and their health will suffer accordingly.
We have not been helped by some of the actions of the local council, including a rent increase in sheltered housing of £18 a week. For many elderly people who are not on full housing benefit, or on housing benefit at all, but are of limited means, that is an unacceptable increase, which will mean that their limited savings for their old age will have to go much further than they imagined.
I draw attention to the plight of families in London when they need hospital services. We have spoken about housing and poverty, and health is another major requirement for equality of opportunity. If the Health Service is not functioning when needed in a way that will restore health, there is no equality. I endorse may of the statistics on the closure of hospitals in London and the cut in the number of acute beds.
Let me illustrate what is happening in one of the two major district hospitals in my area by reading an extract from a letter that I received from a paediatrician. He said:
In view of your interest in our Department I thought I would bring you up-to-date with our present problems. The downstairs ward at the Brook Hospital has been closed since shortly after the hurricane. This was initially as a result of an invasion of sewage flies from the overloaded Brook Hospital sewer. These have proved extremely difficult to eradicate. However, I was informed today that the ward now remains closed because the hospital cannot find enough domestic staff to open it. We therefore have to cram all our medical and surgical patients into the upstairs ward which makes life very cramped and possibly contravenes health and safety regulations.
In view of the high, and rapidly rising, rate of child abuse in Greenwich District … we have a requirement for 2 full time Social Workers in Paediatric Social Work at the Brook Hospital. One Social Worker recently left and it has proved impossible to replace her. I think that Social Workers have been put off applying for this post because of the risk of being embroiled in child abuse scandals …

The Medical Secretarial service at the Memorial Hospital has been radically curtailed. As a result I am still signing letters dictated in early January"—
this letter is dated 15 March—
and there are some letters which were dictated for Paediatric and Gynae Clinics in late December which have still not been typed.
The letter also stated:
The whole of the Brook is a depressing and depressed area. For a while this year the children were given sandwiches for their evening meal. As you might imagine many of my patients would not accept strong cheddar cheese and Branston pickle sandwiches. Following a strong protest we have reinstituted cooked food for the children though I am not sure whether this applies to the rest of the hospital.
That is a bleak medical picture.
Much needs to be put right in Greenwich. Poor housing, poverty and the Health Service must be sorted out. There will be much argument about whose fault those problems are. I have no doubt that the people of Greenwich are suffering because of the combination of a harsh Tory regime towards alleviating poverty, of not allowing money to be spent on building new homes for those who desperately need them and on restoring dilapidated homes, and the ideological conviction of the hard Left council in Greenwich and its inflexible approach to the problems that ordinary people face daily.
People such as the lady who wrote to me about her baby and those going into the Brook hospital and receiving that sort of treatment do not care whose fault it is. They just want it put right. Such suffering can and should be alleviated. Some things could be done immediately. We could eliminate the 20 per cent. ceiling on reinvestment in housing. We should use the money from the sale of council houses to build new ones, which are desperately needed in south-east London. We should seriously consider allowing portable discounts for tenants who are trapped in those miserable council properties so that they can buy a decent home. That has been SDP policy for some time.
We should reconsider the poll tax and ask whether it is right to expect people to pay £500 or £600 a head when they have no means to pay that sort of money and never expected having to do so. A tax of that sort, which does not reflect people's ability to pay and comes out of the blue, is uncalled for.
We should invest more money in our National Health Service. It cannot exist on a shoestring budget. If we want our children to get better, we must do more than give them cheese and pickle sandwiches in sewage-fly-infested wards. That is a disgrace in modern London. The suffering and the excuses must stop. Action must be taken to resolve some of the problems with practical solutions.

Mr. Clive Soley: This has been a useful debate in which 15 of the 23 Labour Members of Parliament for London have been present in the Chamber at one time or another and at least four other Labour Members of Parliament have been trying to speak. Compare that with the Conservative party, which has been rooting around in the back streets of Westminster trying to dragoon its Members in.

Mr. Waldegrave: To put the matter properly on the record, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 15 came in seriatim—one after the other? There were never more than four in the Chamber at a time.

Mr. Soley: We carry out our operation in waves. I make no excuses about that.
The real issue is the ideological commitment of the Government to the market economy. They believe that if everyone is allowed to do his own thing, without any thought for the community or society, everyone will be better off. That has been spelt out by Conservative Member after Conservative Member, but they forget that the market is already distorted. In April, the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a Budget that gave millionaires a rise of about £430 a week, and the Secretary of State and the Minister introduced housing benefit cuts that took £10 and £20 a week from the lowest paid.
That is the moral crisis of the Conservative party. However many times they try to use North sea oil to bribe the voters of the south-east to maintain their majority, they cannot hide the fact—as the Churches have rightly pointed out—that the Conservative party is devoid of morality on such issues.
Interestingly, the market will not be allowed to rip in the south-east. There, if people build houses where they are wanted, all of a sudden 100 Conservative Members sign motions saying that there must be planning controls and that local authorities must be allowed to step in. To his credit, the Secretary of State says no. I think that it is a mistaken policy. but at least he is consistent in saying, "No, you must not." But 100 Tory Members are constantly saying, "No market in my back yard," because the market is too embarrassing.
The same philosophy justifies the rise for the millionaires: to encourage people who are well off to work they must be given more money, but those who are badly off must be given less money to encourage them to work. There is no consistency in their philosophy.
The Government are abolishing the Inner London education authority not because it is expensive to run—the Metropolitan police are three times as expensive and local authority social services are twice as expensive—but because ILEA, like the GLC and the metropolitan counties, is run by the Labour party, and they want to smash anything resembling local democracy that they cannot win in the normal democratic way.
When the Inner London education authority goes, nursery education, school meals and the adult education service will he squeezed in some boroughs. We know that that is true because in the Kensington by-election, the poor old Secretary of State for Education and Science was wheeled out to try to explain the bizarre figure of £122 per head for the poll tax in Kensington. When asked about education, he said that it would be cheaper to collect. Price Waterhouse has said that it will be more expensive. The Secretary of State for the Environment has issued figures showing that the poll tax will be more like £380 per head in Kensington. Let us have no more nonsense about this wicked and regressive tax imposed on the people of London.
As for jobs, the Minister said that the homeless do not exist any more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) pointed out, the homeless do not apply for bed-and-breakfast accommodation because they no longer get in advance the money needed to pay the rents for which the landlords ask. The homeless do not exist—just like the jobless! I was mistaken in thinking that there were 3 million unemployed people. It is just a wicked rumour put about by 3 million people with nothing better to do all day. The homeless do not

exist. We cannot really see those people who live in cardboard boxes. The doubling of the number of people who present themselves to local authorities as homeless is just a statistic. That is what the Government say.
I was fascinated to see the hon. Members for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) quietly take the comment of a Home Secretary who says that they are to blame for the crime wave. This group is a new scapegoat for the Government—perhaps not all that new, because the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) also blamed them. Teachers and parents are to blame, we are told. The Home Secretary has discovered another group to blame—broadcasters. Everyone is to blame, except the Government—yet under the Government the figures have been rising faster than under any previous Government and faster than in any other western European country.
More important, they have been rising when they should have been falling. The age range of those who commit crimes is falling. Normally, when that demographic change takes place, there is a decline in the crime rate. There has been a decline in some sectors, but in others—especially the deadly crimes of casual violence—there has been an increase. I sadly predict that that increase will continue. If people are driven into homelessness and their benefits are slashed in a way that breaks up communities, the crime rate will be pushed up.
As I have told the Government before, some aspects of crime have become dramatically worse under the Conservative Government. Of the many causes of crime, three of the most important aspects are consistency in parenting, love in parenting, or other relationships within a family, and the strength of the community. In all three the Government are guilty, by making it more difficult for families struggling to maintain themselves on the margins of survival to carry on building up family bonds. The phrase introduced by the right hon. Member for Chingford, "On your bike", sums it up—it means "Get on your bike, leave your family and look for work." When kids came to London, what accommodation did they find? The Government said that they would improve housing and free the market. As a result of freeing the market in London, more than half the lets are already outside Rent Act provisions and the private sector is drying up faster than it has done since this idea was last tried in 1957. What a disaster this is.
The Government pretend that unemployment is not a factor and say, "These are youngsters. They are not at work." The Government forget that a family which is only just managing to cope and has to face additional pressures—perhaps unemployment for the father or rent arrears for the family—can be expected to run into more difficulties. It is no good the Home Secretary blaming teachers like the hon. Members for Ealing, North and for Erith and Crayford—if they had taught me, it would have been enough to drive me to crime—or blaming broadcasters.
Even the Evening Standard is getting worried. It has been ranting and raving about crime while at the same time encouraging it by some of its articles, especially those on race aspects. The Evening Standard has editorials which show that it is worried. In floundering around in a desperate attempt to find a reason for our problems, that newspaper recognises that the breakdown in the community is one factor. The Government, in their attack on local authorities and communities, are bringing that about. That is why the crime rate will continue to increase.
I challenge the Minister to say what he would do about the four hospitals that will close in north-west London. The Westminster, the Westminster Children's, the St. Mary Abbots and the West London are all to be closed because the Government want the money to close a fifth hospital—St. Stephen's—and reopen it in three year's time. Riverside district health authority wants £25 million, or it will close those four hospitals and rebuild the other. I challenge the Minister to say what he or the Conservative candidate in Kensington would do about that. The answer is nothing, as everyone knows.

Mr. Waldegrave: I should like to put this firmly on the record. As the hon. Gentleman knows, these decisions, which are not yet final, involve the choice of building a new £100 million hospital at St. Stephen's. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not want that hospital? It is important to know the answer.

Mr. Soley: I should love to see that new hospital but, more important, I do not believe that it is necessary to close four other hospitals to do so; nor does anyone else, including the medical staff and the district authority. That authority has clearly said that it cannot manage without the £25 million. That amount is a tiny percentage of the amount given in the Budget to millionaires. Where is the morality in that? Where is the morality in the Conservative party?
The Government say, "Let us do something about transport." They are to drive a dirty great west cross route through Kensington, which will blight homes on either side of it. The Government are doing that in the belief that somehow it will improve internal transport in London. Have they ever thought that perhaps we should give a little more support to the public transport system as one way of improving it?
We come to housing—the Government's big failure. Housing troubles people in Kensington perhaps more than anything else, other than the poll tax. There are 16,000 homes in multiple occupation in Kensington, all eligible for the van Hoogstratens of this world. Because the Minister cares about this matter, I hope that he will respond when he gets my letter asking him to meet two women who were driven out of their home by Mr. van Hoogstraten. One of them appeared in the television programme on him. Those women will tell the Minister, in ways that he does not seem to accept from me, why Mr. van Hoogstraten is able to succeed.
The Minister could help by saying that tenants of non-resident landlords in the private sector can pick a landlord. Was that not what the Government were talking about in the Housing Bill? Was there not supposed to be something about "pick a landlord"? The Government turned it into "pick a tenant". The Bill allows people in the private sector or in housing associations, which I support, to take over public property in the form of council properties. The Government have not allowed a person in the private sector to say, "I have a Mr. van Hoogstraten on my back. I want a different landlord." The Government could have given local authorities a power and, more important, a duty to ensure that they had a tenants relations officer to check up on such properties and take

action. We must remember that people cannot necessarily get legal aid for such cases, but the Government do not provide for all that. To them, it does not matter.
Buying a house? Forget it in London. One cannot buy a house in London any more unless one is earning a very good salary—well in excess of £20,000 per annum. Where is a person supposed to get a mortgage for houses and flats that cost more than £100,000? Where is a person supposed to rent when the market is well over £100 a week in most areas—one of the lowest estimates I have been able to get. The Conservative candidate in Kensington is offering a flat in Kensington for £500 a week. One must apply to the economic adviser in The Economist who is none other than the Conservative candidate for Kensington. It is £500 a week, so presumably he knows——

Mr. Nicholas Soames: He is executive editor.

Mr. Soley: I thank the hon. Gentleman. So one has to apply to him for that flat at £500 a week. Do Conservative Members really believe that ordinary Londoners can afford that? Could a bus driver or a teacher afford it, or others who are desperately in need?
The Government tell us about empty properties. We have heard all about housing action trusts. One can have anything one likes except a vote. One is not allowed to vote just in case one does not vote in favour. The Government say that they want to deal with empty properties. The Minister ducked the question when I challenged him yesterday. He said that there are not many empty Government-owned Ministry of Defence properties in London. Actually, there are quite a few.
But it is not just that Department that we are concerned with—what about properties owned by the Home Office, London Regional Transport or the Department of the Environment? There is a whole range of empty properties in the Government sector, which are not being mentioned. Some 6·9 per cent. of Government-owned properties are empty, compared with an average of 2·5 per cent. of local authority properties, 4·1 per cent. in the private sector and 3 per cent. in the housing association sector. What matters is bad management, whoever manages the property—local authorities, the Government, private owners and so on.
The Government are not doing anything about that. All that they are doing is driving a wedge between the people of London, which is reflected in the rest of the country—a wedge between rich and poor, black and white, old and young, male and female. That is why Ann Holmes will be the new Member for Kensington on Thursday.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): During the debate I was almost converted from my views on televising Parliament, because, if the debate had been televised, it would have been worth another 10,000 votes to us in the Kensington by-election. Never have I heard such sterile speeches as we had from the Opposition. As for the dying swan songs of the splintered centre, we had better pass them by in silence.
The tone was set by the speech by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who spoke in the inimitable accents of my late and much-lamented aunt, Joyce Grenfell. She gave a catalogue of the past gamut of Labour analysis. It was only with


speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that we began to grapple with the problems.
The saddest intervention was by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). The hon. Lady made an eloquent speech, in the course of which she said that nothing was the fault of Labour councils. Even the leader of her council, Dave Sullivan, knows that that is not true, as he says in the secret reports that leak out of that council all the time. He admits that, despite the great expenditure and politicisation of officers recently, criticised by the ombudsman, there has been no improvement in services.

Ms. Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) had five minutes longer to speak than I shall have, so I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but to no one else.

Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister accept that Lewisham borough council is willing and able to put its own house in order to deal with disrepair on its estates and that it is the Government who deny the council the money for that?

Mr. Waldegrave: Not on the objective evidence of looking at the competence of highly politicised housing departments, which went to the point of writing unsolicited letters to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), the Minister with responsibility for sport, criticising his political views. When the politicisation of officers has gone to that extent, can the hon. Lady he surprised that we begin to doubt the competence of such authorities?
Opposition Members will be astonished—the hon. Member for Hammersmith will not, because I suspect that he has had the same experience—to hear that when I meet Labour authorities in the midlands and the north of England, which I do regularly, their opening words are, "For goodness' sake, we are not like those Labour authorities in London. We understand your problems with them. We are different. We are good Labour authorities." They are anxious to put a gap between them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I shall give Opposition Members some names. Let us take the Labour council in Blackburn, which was the most recent one to put that point to me clearly—and why not, because such a council is a different kettle of fish? Why are those councils so anxious to put as much space as possible between the London Labour party and themselves? They know that we are right in our criticisms of Labour in London.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about homelessness. The trouble is that the feebleness of the Opposition that we have had to face today makes it all to easy for us to pass over the fact that there are real problems in London. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there are problems, and many of my hon. Friends recognise that.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey should be careful in using the 30,000 registered homeless as if that were the permanent picture. That figure represents the annual acceptances, half of which go into permanent accommodation. We recognise the problem and that is why today we are giving the third set of additional

allocations to several local authorities, to deal, above all, with the bed-and-breakfast problem. It is wrong that families should be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been a steady reduction, which was repeated in the last quarter's figures, for those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is an expert and is anxious about the problem, will welcome that fall. It is not the beginning of a total solution of all the problems, but to get those families out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation must be a high priority for all of us.
The Opposition did not convey a vision of how we should manage housing in London as a whole. In London, about one third of all the housing stock is social housing—council or housing association property. Do Opposition Members think that that is enough, too much, or too little? With a stock that size, if we cannot manage to meet the needs of those in real housing need, with one in three of all the dwellings in London in the social rented sector, it is the incompetence of those who are responsible for it to which we must look first.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) put forward a radical new proposal, which is relevant—that we should have transferable discounts so that there is better use of the stock. I know that she voted against the Housing Bill, so she might have missed it, but we are doing exactly that. That is what we must now do. We must get the housing to those who need it most. Equally important, we must make sure that in this great city we are not polarised between the very rich and the very poor. That is why the right to buy and home ownership in London are so vital.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: No, because I have only four minutes left.
The 120,000 families who are now home owners, having bought council property, or the 300,000 new home owners in London since 1979, represent a far more practical step towards building a city that is balanced in tenure than any of the rhetoric and nonsense that we have had from the Opposition today.
Opposition Members often say that the right to buy has caused a huge loss of new lets, which results in homelessness. It has not. I can give the House some new figures. During the period 1983–84 to 1986–87, which is a reasonable period on which to calculate, 4,650 potential new lettings were lost as a result of right-to-buy disposals, but that loss was far more than offset by the addition to the London council housing stock, leaving aside housing associations for the moment, of just under 26,000 houses. So it is a myth to say that the right to buy has contributed to homelessness in that way. A more careful analysis is needed if we are to proceed in the right direction.
The Labour authorities in London, which the hon. Member for Deptford so touchingly said were responsible for none of the problems, are in fact in possession of billions of pounds worth of public property of one type or another. It is their duty to use that money efficiently to meet the needs of the people of London. Some of their confreres in other parts of the country and, indeed, some in London, can achieve that. But while the London Labour party dominates those councils and while we have


rent arrears of £30 million and the slowness of the lets in Southwark, the muddles and confusion in Tower Hamlets——

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is getting better.

Mr. Waldegrave: All right, but even the hon. Gentleman would not want to say that he was proud of that organisation. He distanced himself from it today in one important matter of policy which he and I have discussed a number of times, so he is not too proud of the Liberal organisation of Tower Hamlets.
Today we have had nothing but sterility from the Opposition. From the Government Benches we have had a number of excellent speeches which analysed the situation, looked to the future and rubbed the noses of Labour Members in some of the truths that they like to forget and that their colleagues throughout the country know to be one of the reasons why they lost the last election. It was London Labour areas, where we did better than anywhere else in the country, that helped us to power in the last election and will doubtless do so again in the next one.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 279.

Division No. 407]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cox, Tom


Allen, Graham
Cryer, Bob


Alton, David
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunningham, Dr John


Armstrong, Hilary
Dalyell, Tam


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Darling, Alistair


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barron, Kevin
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Doran, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alexander


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boyes, Roland
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bradley, Keith
Fatchett, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fearn, Ronald


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin


Buckley, George J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fraser, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Galbraith, Sam


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Cartwright, John
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clay, Bob
Gordon, Mildred


Clelland, David
Gould, Bryan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Graham, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corbett, Robin
Grocott, Bruce


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cousins, Jim
Haynes, Frank





Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Henderson, Doug
Murphy, Paul


Hinchliffe, David
Nellist, Dave


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Holland, Stuart
O'Brien, William


Home Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Parry, Robert


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Patchett, Terry


Howells, Geraint
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Illsley, Eric
Redmond, Martin


Ingram, Adam
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


John, Brynmor
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kennedy, Charles
Robertson, George


Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lamond, James
Rogers, Allan


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Ruddock, Joan


Litherland, Robert
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Short, Clare


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


McLeish, Henry
Soley, Clive


Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Rt Hon David


McTaggart, Bob
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wall, Pat


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martlew, Eric
Wareing, Robert N.


Maxton, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Meale, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Worthington, Tony


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wray, Jimmy


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morley, Elliott
Mr. Allen Adams and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Allason, Rupert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Baldry, Tony
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bowis, John


Batiste, Spencer
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Bellingham, Henry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Benyon,W.
Brazier, Julian






Bright, Graham
Grylls, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Christopher


Butcher, John
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Churchill, Mr
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Janman, Tim


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Colvin, Michael
Kilfedder, James


Conway, Derek
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cope, Rt Hon John
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knowles, Michael


Curry, David
Knox, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lang, Ian


Day, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dicks, Terry
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Den
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dunn, Bob
Lilley, Peter


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eggar, Tim
Lord, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McCrindle, Robert


Evennett, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Farr, Sir John
Maclean, David


Favell, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Madel, David


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Maples, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Franks, Cecil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Roger
Mates, Michael


French, Douglas
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gale, Roger
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Sir Hal


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Moate, Roger


Green way, Harry (Ealing N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gregory, Conal
Moore, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Morrison, Sir Charles


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Ground, Patrick
Moss, Malcolm





Moynihan, Hon Colin
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mudd, David
Speed, Keith


Neale, Gerrard
Speller, Tony


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Neubert, Michael
Squire, Robin


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Steen, Anthony


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stokes, Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sumberg, David


Page, Richard
Summerson, Hugo


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Redwood, John
Tredinnick, David


Renton, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Rhodes James, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walden, George


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rost, Peter
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew
Walters, Sir Dennis


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Watts, John


Ryder, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wheeler, John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wood, Timothy


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Woodcock, Mike


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. David Lightbown.


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on those economic and social policies which have created conditions in London in which real incomes are rising; notes, with particular satisfaction, that between 1981 and 1985 the real incomes of the poorest rose faster than average; endorses the Government's policies to alleviate inner city deprivation in London through the programmes set out in Action for Cities, including economic regeneration through the encouragement of enterprise, employment and training, improved housing, through such programmes as estate action, the establishment of Housing Action Trusts and the extension of the role of housing associations, education and revitalising the urban environment.

Sport

Mr. Dews Howell: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the failure of Government policies to provide for the requirements of British sport, including a genuine Sport For All policy which meets the needs of community-based sport and recreation; deplores Government intentions to privatise the management of local authority sports facilities, and the sale of school playing fields; regrets the reconstitution of the Sports Council, removing the democratic right of British sport to elect its own representatives; condemns the failure of the Government to deal with the problem of criminal hooliganism in society as a whole and the imposition of unacceptable club membership schemes which remove the civil rights of genuine football supporters and which force upon football clubs arrangements which are impracticable and expensive; and calls for the development of a strategy for sport which is coherent and meets the needs of the whole of British sport.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Howell: The debate is about the social purpose of sport, which is being undermined by the Government at every turn. Sport ought to provide millions of our people with opportunities for enjoyment in their personal lives and with a sense of challenge and achievement, and there should be pleasure for us all in the triumphs of those who delight the nation with superb performances.
Sport should enrich the society in which we live, but the Prime Minister tells us that there is no such thing as society. She is now firmly in control of sports policy, so we must assume that she regards the role of sport in society as irrelevant. Alone of all nations, Britain offers not a penny piece to those seeking to attract here the great festivals of international sport—the Olympic games, the Commonwealth games and the world student games. Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Sheffield are all cash-limited or rate-capped and left to their own devices. That is very sad, because international sport has an enormous contribution to make to the multiracial society in which we live.
The debate takes place at a time when many of our national sports—football, cricket, rugby and tennis—are producing abysmal performances. We hope that the members of our summer Olympic team, to whom we send our best wishes, will have better fortune than their comrades in the winter Olympics.
The future of all British sport is to be found in school sport. It is there that the basic skills are taught and lifetime enthusiasms generated. Never has morale in school sport been in such a state of collapse. The Government's running conflict with the teaching profession is having disastrous results. Forced contracts in Scotland are decimating school sports and directed time in England and Wales is totally destroying their voluntary nature.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: Not yet, it is too early.
When the English Schools Football Association tells me that it fears for the future, the rot has certainly set in. Two weeks ago, I attended the annual schools' athletic championships in the west midlands. For the first time in the history of those championships, 40 per cent. of the

entrants failed to turn up. Judges had to be recruited from the crowd and people were asked to judge the javelin or the shot because teachers were not there. I inquired about the reason for this terrible situation and was told by physical education teachers that they were being directed to do other things and chose to to do their own things at weekends.
Anybody who doubts the disastrous effect on school sports of the Government's policy should stop for a minute or two to consider the report of the Secondary Heads Association. It represents headmasters in 5,161 schools that are teaching 4,095,500 secondary school pupils. A survey by the Secondary Heads Association found that
95 per cent. of all schools have witnessed a rapid decline in the number of team fixtures during the last two years.
70 per cent. of schools have inadequate playing fields and indoor facilities.
75 per cent. of pupils no longer have the opportunity to learn to swim.
That is an utter disgrace and a threat to public health as well as to the future of British swimming. The association found that
40 per cent. of schools have inadequate facilities for dance and gymnastics.
So few schools employ groundsmen that nearly half of all playing fields (by Department of Education and Science criteria) are substandard.
There could hardly be a more damning indictment of a Government who are failing in their duty to produce future generations of British sports people as well as facilities for people who enjoy sport for their own pleasure.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend spoke about swimming. Does he agree that, following the recent tragedy in the North sea, it was established that one of the troubles was that many workers on the oil rig could not swim?

Mr. Howell: That is not within my personal knowledge, but I am happy to accept it. It is possibly the case. As I have given way to my hon. Friend, perhaps the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) wishes to intervene.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is very gracious, and I appreciate his giving way. I was about to pursue a theme that he was developing earlier in his speech, when he said that the fountainhead of all successful sport was in schools. Is that true of our successful golfers, such as Nick Faldo and Sandy Lyle or of our snooker player Steve Davis? Many of our most successful sportsmen have developed their skills with good coaching, outside the school system.

Mr. Howell: I cannot follow that irrelevant remark. It would be like following Nigel Mansell round the motor racing track—which has nothing to do with school sport, I concede.
I want to talk about the scandal of the sale of our educational sports grounds. The Central Council of Physical Recreation has done an excellent job in drawing our attention to the fact that the Department of the Environment's own land register shows that 5,000 acres of sports fields are up for sale at present. That area is equal to a city the size of Coventry, and it is a reflection on the Government that they have allowed that to happen.
School sport in London, after the abolition of the GLC and the proposed execution of ILEA, will be in a catastrophic position. In its last year, the GLC spent


almost £40 million on sport and recreation in London. Neither the boroughs nor the Government have provided anything like that amount. In their amendment, the Government make some play of increasing the Sports Council's grant by 37 per cent. but they do not tell us that £5 million of that was provided to compensate for the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, so it is a false figure. In 1981, the Sports Council grant was £19 million, of which £5 million went to the governing bodies; today the grant is £38 million, of which only £8 million goes to the governing bodies. Not only local authorities but the governing bodies of British sport are being crushed by Government policies.
ILEA is rate-capped and the effect on London is that ILEA is having to close down 12 school playing fields. That is an absolute disgrace. ILEA is also cutting swimming time for pupils and the number of teachers and instructors who train pupils in London schools.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister is to be condemned. He is a product of school sport, yet he preaches to the nation about what the Government will do with school playing fields. He is an utter disgrace.

Mr. Howell: I hope to reinforce my hon. Friend's judgment in the course of my remarks.

Mr. John Carlisle: The right hon Gentleman and other more senior hon. Members know of my interest in the subject and of my anxiety some years ago to promote a Bill—which the right hon. Gentleman supported—on the sale of playing fields.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about ILEA. Is he certain that ILEA is determined to close those fields? Is it not rather that, after consultation with my hon. Friend the Minister, certain boroughs will take over those sports facilities, thanks to the Government's initiative?

Mr. Howell: I am coming to that point. By 1990, when ILEA goes, there will be a tremendous crisis because the playing fields will go to the London residuary body. It will have to dispose of the playing fields, at present used by children in inner-London areas, to the highest bidders. That is what has happened to the Lyceum theatre. I spent an hour this afternoon with ILEA, so I am sure of my facts.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: Yes, although I assume that the Minister will make a speech later.

Mr. Moynihan: All the playing fields to which the right hon. Gentleman referred would go to the London education authorities and not to the London residuary body. After April 1990, it will be for the London education authorities to decide whether the playing fields have educational value and therefore whether they will remain in the control of education authorities for use by local students.

Mr. Howell: That is a completely unsatisfactory reply. Will those arrangements apply to the playing fields that ILEA so thoughtfully purchased outside London for use by children from inside London? That was one of the

central questions that I was about to ask the Minister. We need a reply. Perhaps he will tell us. I shall certainly give way again if he wishes.

Mr. Moynihan: In my speech.

Mr. Howell: Oh.
The London borough of Waltham Forest would like to buy Waltham Lodge but it cannot because of what is to happen in 1990. That is an example of the difficulties that authorities face.
Opposition Members wish to draw the Minister's attention to a number of priorities on sport in schools with which we expect him to deal tonight. First, as an absolute minimum, physical education time ought to occupy at least 10 per cent. of the school curriculum. Nothing like that is provided in many schools at the moment. Secondly, we want in-service training for PE teachers, especially in primary schools, which are badly served in terms of sport and recreation.
Thirdly, we need greater flexibility in planning and provision for sport in local authorities and local education authorities and we should like the massive capital receipts to be unlocked in the interests of the sporting needs of the British people. Fourthly, we need development officers for sport. Given all the problems associated with boredom in our society, the need for more development officers stares one in the face. Such officers could create new sporting opportunities and attract people into playing a positive role.
There should be no more sales of school playing fields and where such sell-offs are projected, we want an assessment of both their present use and the future needs of sport. Finally, we seek 100 per cent. discretionary, if not compulsory, rating relief for all sports clubs that serve the community.
Let us consider local authority sport. The Sports Council's recent strategy document is entitled "Sport in the Community: into the 90s". There is no hope of pursuing that strategy unless we allow local authorities to provide facilities for all their citizens. In my own city of Birmingham, there were 620,000 users of indoor leisure facilities last year and there were 3 million sessions of swimming. All that is now threatened by the proposed privatisation of management. It is the city council that has built the facilities and attracted people to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "He thinks this is funny."] This Minister thinks that everything is funny. Charm oozes from every pore, but action from nowhere; he is stultified.
The Minister's own constituency of Lewisham has 202,800 users of indoor facilities and 740,000 swimming sessions. We should take these issues to the people. We should ask the people of Lewisham, as well as the people of London in general, why, when a local authority—not always a Labour authority—has taken the initiative and had the courage to provide facilities, that authority should be undermined by its own Member of Parliament.
The consultation document has turned out to be a total disaster for the Minister. Last week, he told the House that he had had 348 replies and that he was putting them in the Library. We had a count today and discovered that only 211 of the replies are to be found in the Library. What has happened to all the others? Of the replies to his consultation document, our analysis shows that 95 per cent. representing local government Conservative, Labour, Liberal and every other hue regard the


consultation document as a disaster and reject it. The responses have been overwhelmingly hostile to the Government.
The Minister says that he wants private enterprise to manage the facilities. There has been nothing to stop private enterprise building sports halls and swimming baths, had it wished to do so, but it has not. Faced with the opposition to policy mark 1, which was to privatise everything, the Government brought out policy mark 2, which was to privatise the management resources. That policy was manifest nonsense. After management had been privatised, local authorities would have been left to pay all the loan charges and insurance, to pay for the equipment and maintenance, and to subsidise sport for the unemployed, the handicapped and pensioners. No wonder the local authorities to a man rose up in opposition to that ridiculous policy.
Policy mark 3 is to privatise but to allow local authorities to decide the pricing policy and the philosophy. We need to know what that means. The Secretary of State for the Environment never attends sports debates or sports meetings. He has never been through a sports turnstile in his life. He is never seen at any sports ground. That is why he is the Cabinet Minister responsible for these matters. On 22 July 1987 he told us, in respect of his own legislation:
The enabling power will … allow the level of fees and charges under existing, new or amended charging powers to be prescribed or varied."—[Official Report, 22 July 1987; Vol. 120, c. 277.]
How can the Minister say that local authorities can have their own pricing policy when his boss, the Secretary of State, says that he will prescribe what the pricing policy should be? It is a total contradiction.
The Minister must come clean and tell us: will local authorities have the power to prescribe charges for privatised management schemes, or is the Secretary of State's diktat to apply? The other day the Minister said:
Where a council wishes … to subsidise its pricing policy, it is perfectly entitled to write that into the contractual arrangements."—[Official Report, 1 July 1988; Vol. 136, c. 650.]
If a council is free to fix the prices, why should it want to subsidise those prices? It makes no sense. It can only make sense if it means that the council can fix prices but if the Secretary of State disagrees, he will give a direction, and at that point the council would be free to subsidise if it wished to do so.
The privatisation of the management of local authority sports facilities will price thousands of young people out of sports facilities. They will be turned on to the streets to find their excitement in other ways. It will also mean that many sports facilities will become bastions of middle-class activity, as has happened, for example, with lawn tennis to its detriment. No sport can prosper and produce champions unless the base of the pyramid is large enough.
The Sports Council recognises the dangers. In briefing notes it says:
the willingness of local authorities to build new facilities in the future is a matter of concern".
Of course it should be. No local authority in its right mind will build new sports facilities just to hand them over to private management. That is a reality of life which the Minister must accept.
The Minister has talked about joint schemes. He takes refuge in his statement about exemption for joint shemes provided in schools with local authority recreational support. In Birmingham, where we are doing this, it was after a great fight with entrenched interests. The problem is that although under the Education Act 1986, the Minister wants joint schemes between education and recreational departments, under his new proposal, school governors have a complete say. School governors and heads can decide whether joint schemes in schools will be open to the public. Therefore, we cannot find any comfort in what the Minister has told us about joint schemes. We would like to see more, but his own legislation precludes that.
One of the saddest features of the Government is the contempt in which they hold the democratic process. We see it time and again. Good people are removed from the Sports Council, the Countryside Commission and regional authorities. The test for the Prime Minister and for the Minister is: is he one of us? They do not ask themselves whether the person will make a contribution to society.
The Minister is applying that dictum to the Sports Council, which is par for the course for him. He has removed all regional chairmen of sports councils without consulting the House. He announced that, as he usually announces such things, by a written answer to a planted question so that he did not have to explain to the House why he was removing the right of the Central Council of Physical Recreation to elect the representatives of British sport whom it wants on the Sports Council. That is the essence of democracy and was a right first accorded by me after the White Paper in 1979, and followed by every Conservative Minister until the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. We want to know why he has decided to depart from the wisdom of all others who have held that office. We are entitled to an answer.
The Sports Council will have no representatives of local government or of British sport. I have heard just today that the one representative of the Football Trust, which the Minister tells us will help pay for his membership scheme, has had a letter from the Minister telling him that his services are no longer required. That is a disaster. That member has served only two of his three years as a representative of the Football Trust which is putting millions of pounds into community sport. No doubt the Minister will explain why he thinks that there should be no democracy in the Sports Council.

Mr. David Evans: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me one initiative taken by the five members who have just retired from the Sports Council?

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman means the nine chairmen of regional sports councils, I would regard it as inconceivable that those nine, covering the whole country, have never put forward any initiatives for sport.

Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of one initiative taken by the CCPR members who retired on 30th June?

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Member will look at the history of those sports that the CCPR represents, he will find that it is responsible for the voluntary control of them all. Everything that has been achieved in voluntary sports has been the result of the initiatives that the CCPR members took as representatives of British sport.
We know why the Minister wants to move in the direction he does. For him, the game is up. In an unguarded moment, he wrote a letter to the Sports Council chairman in November 1987, in which he stated:
The Sports Council is to become the executive arm of Government.
That is what he wrote. Like everything else, sport is now to be brought under the immediate control of No. 10 and the Minister. The consultation exercise showed that 95 per cent. of those involved did not wish to go along with the Government, but that comment by the Minister before the consultation process began proves beyond peradventure that it was an absolute sham and was never intended to influence the Government—and it has had no influence. It was a totalitarian concept. Ministers who treat Parliament, sport or local government with contempt do themselves no service, and any Minister who does all three simultaneously is beyond recall.
I turn to the subject of football club membership schemes, relating to one of the greatest problems facing our country. One of the other great problems this country faces is the presence of Conservatives on the Government Benches. Serious violence confronts our nation, and it is spreading throughout our cities and rural areas. It is also to be found on the beaches of Spain. Yet the Government have not yet begun to approach the problem rationally.
It is not just a problem for football, but one for society —although if one does not believe in society, it is unlikely that one will be able to cure the problem. Three times I have offered to join an all-party examination of this serious national problem. Three times that offer has been rejected. For the fourth time, I make that offer. This matter transcends party political considerations, but the Government are looking for scapegoats or alibies.
The giveaway occurs in the plan that the Minister put before the House. He said that football violence was such a serious problem that he had to impose a membership scheme on every football supporter because that was the only way of getting the problem under control. But he added that the scheme will not be introduced next year and will have to wait another 12 months; the nation is to be terrorised for a further 12 months.

Mr. John Carlisle: Nonsense. That is stupid.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member for Luton, North ( Mr. Carlisle) says, "That is stupid," but if football violence really is a serious problem affecting everyone in the country, it should be seriously dealt with now, not in 12 months' time. That 12-month delay is one of the greatest derelictions of duty that I have ever encountered during my time in the House.
We all know that really it is an alibi, and I can tell the House the reason for it. It may be remembered that three years ago, the Prime Minister first sent for the Football Association chairman, and that the No. 10 propaganda machine was busy carrying the message that the Prime Minister was now in charge and that everything would soon be under control. In the three years that followed, disaster followed disaster. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have much to answer for, as do many others.
Football itself has co-operated in every way. The Minister looks abashed, and no doubt will tell the House why he stated before the European football championship that the Football Association could not have done more and that he was delighted and pleased that it had

co-operated with the Government in every respect. Those were his comments, and that is what he told me. In March, I wrote to the Minister and, on behalf of the Opposition, expressed the gravest doubts that the measures taken by the Football Association and by the Minister would be successful in curtailing the situation in Germany. The Minister replied that he was totally satisfied with the association's arrangements for dealing with the potential problem. I can only tell the House and the country that that is what happened, and I will publish that correspondence if the Minister disputes what I have said.
It is not immediately clear to any of us why the problems in Frankfurt and Dusseldorf, disgraceful though they were, should justify a scheme covering all legitimate, law-abiding football supporters throughout the country. That was a panic reaction to a serious situation. The Minister's membership scheme is totally impracticable and it will not work.
One can imagine the scene one Wednesday night at one of our great football grounds for an FA Cup replay Along comes a supporter in the darkness, tendering his gate money, and the old boy manning the turnstile is expected to study his identity card. The supporter arrives at the gate at 7.20 pm for the replay, pays his money and receives his change—and then he must produce a card. The gatekeeper, locked in his little compartment, will have to study the photograph on the identity card to make sure that it is correct.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What is the point of it?

Mr. Howell: The Minister has said that the card must bear a photograph—I am not inventing all this.
The gatekeeper must then insert it into the machine. At that point, the gatekeeper might have to tell the supporter, "You can't come in." There may be another 300 people queuing behind him, yet the elderly gatekeeper will be looking through his grille saying, "Please go away." The whole thing is farcical. The gatekeeper will do what the police already do when there is likely to be trouble when supporters having no tickets arrive at all-ticket matches. Then the police say, "Open the gates and let them in."

Mr. Moynihan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: I may tell the Minister that if he has ever been to a football match, he can never have seen anything. One of the troubles about the identity scheme is that it has been imposed by people who have never gone through turnstiles in their lives. I was personally present at the match between West Bromwich Albion and Leeds last year when 200 supporters turned up without tickets. They threatened to cause mayhem in the area, and I do not blame the police for responding on that occasion by saying, "Open the gates and let them in." If the Minister blames the police, no doubt he will take up the matter with the Home Secretary. Perhaps he will tell us how he proposes to deal with the problem. I use it merely as an illustration of the practical difficulties posed to the man on the ground.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: What is the right hon. Gentleman's solution?

Mr. Howell: My solution is to deal with the problem of hooligans where it exists, not to create it [Interruption.] I am grateful for my hon. Friends' support, but I do not


want to overdo my generosity with time. Let me draw my hon. Friends' attention to the cost and the total impractability of providing such a scheme. A club in Holland facing the same problem installed an expensive and sophisticated electronic device. It lasted one week. The so-called hooligans poured in sand, chewing gum and bent cards, which destroyed the system. Such a system can work only if there is a policeman at every turnstile ——

Mr. John Carlisle: Rubbish.

Mr. Howell: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is going to tell us about Luton, but we are discussing a national membership scheme, not a localised one. I challenge the Minister to tell us whether he has examined the scheme and whether what I am saying is accurate. But I can assure him that it is accurate: the scheme simply did not work.
If we are to have a centralised computer system that will require a policeman at every turnstile, who will pay for the policemen? Will they be regarded as being inside the ground?

Mr. Moynihan: Yes.

Mr. Howell: That will impose a charge of many more thousands on the football clubs. I am glad that the Minister has made it clear that another tax is to be imposed on football clubs going about their legitimate business.
Let us examine the cost of all this. How many thousands of turnstiles are there in this country? I calculate that there might be 2,500 on any one Saturday, and I am told that the electronic devices might cost £1,000 a time. The Minister can tell us what calculations he has made, but the cost of a centralised computer will be enormous. If half the turnstiles are in operation for half the clubs playing at home on a Saturday afternoon, the cost of feeding in thousands of cards at precisely the same time between 2·45 pm and 3 o'clock will require a very costly computer. Moreover, the cost of using British Telecom lines back to the centralised computer may be as much as £5 a minute. We begin to see how the cost is mounting up. If I have got it wrong, no doubt the Minister will tell us the cost of policing and of the terminal, the computer and the photograph machine.
There are other substantial reasons why everyone, including Leicester university, is opposed to the scheme. It is an affront to civil liberties to say that no man shall take his relative of friend to a football match unless he is registered well ahead of time and has a membership card. I wonder whether the House realises that the only other instance in which it is forbidden to visit a recreational club without a membership card is attendance at a pornographic film. Lawful football supporters are being linked with viewers of pornographic films, and I fundamentally object to that on their behalf. [Laughter.] I think that my hon. Friends are enjoying my speech. I assure them that I have only two more points to raise, and that they will wish me to raise both of them.
First, there is nothing in the package to deal with the racist chanting that we hear in football grounds. I am not surprised by that. Nothing in the Government's approach to the South African question in sport gives us any confidence that they understand the important role of sport in society, particularly in a multiracial society.
We cannot conclude the debate without something being said about the proposal by certain clubs to disrupt the Football League. If sport is about responsibility to society, that must embrace football at all levels. We appreciate the need for our top clubs to be on equal terms with continental clubs and to have the resources to keep good players in this country, and that must be provided for in financial terms. We may well have to have some sort of premier league, but it must be within the existing league structure. No club can provide for itself unless it concerns itself with the health of every other club in the country. That is a question of morality, which clubs would be well advised to consider.
Let me add that, if the proposed premier league or anything like it makes no provision for promotion or relegation, the Government should be aware that they will be creating a cartel, and the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission may well become involved. The Independent Broadcasting Association should also consider whether its policy is in the national interest. On behalf of the Opposition, I have written to Lord Thomson that he must examine the proposals of independent television companies.
Where the Government are taking the action that we have long urged on them—on passport control, sensible attendance orders and stiffer sentences—we shall give them our support, but the truth is that their sports policy lies in tatters. That policy contains no strategy for sport in the community, or for dealing with the evils of hooliganism that the Government visit on football. The Government deserve the censure that we seek to impose on them tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,
welcomes the Government's success in encouraging increased participation in sport and recreation and the opening of new facilities, stimulating private sector sponsorship and increasing grant-in-aid to the Sports Council by 37 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80, bringing forward proposals for competitive tendering to increase the efficient management of existing facilities, announcing proposals for restructuring the membership of the Sports Council to enable it to carry out its responsibilities more effectively, thus setting the scene for the structure and direction of sports policy for the 1990's, providing the police and the courts with comprehensive powers for tackling the problem of criminal hooliganism and in taking a firm lead in ensuring an integrated approach to vigorous law enforcement; and also welcomes the anti-hooligan measures announced following the Prime Minister's meeting on 6th July with the football authorities.".
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for raising the subject of sport, and in particular the theme of sport for all. I am delighted that in doing so he has given me the opportunity to draw the curtain on the Opposition's favourite era, the 1970s, and to reveal how the Government have achieved more sport for all in the 1980s —and how we intend to keep up the momentum through the 1990s and beyond.
Perhaps Opposition Members have not noticed, or do not wish to notice, that since they left office the participation in sport and active recreation by people of all
ages and incomes has increased significantly, and that local authorities' spending on sport and recreation has continued to grow.

Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Minister not recognise that the great impact has been made by responsible local authorities, which seek to make leisure provision in their own areas? Will he pay tribute to their initiative?

Mr. Moynihan: I certainly pay tribute to the fact that local authorities' spending on sport and recreation has increased. I also pay tribute to the substantial increase in sponsorship. Last year another £40 million—that is as much as the Sports Council grant—was put into sport and recreation. Moreover, the level of grant aid to the Sports Council has increased far above the rate of inflation, and additional public spending on sport and recreation through other budgets, including those of the urban programme and the Manpower Services Commission, runs into millions of pounds a year.
Moreover—this is a key point—there has been a continuing and growing increase in sponsorship, not just at the top level, but sensibly packaged to assist the development of sports at grass roots, as well as recognising the importance to the marketing mix of companies— [Interruption] I can give dozens of examples. Let me start with the Trustcard initiative in the world of rowing. It is not just at the top of rowing—[Interruption.] Opposition Members ask for examples and when I give one they ridicule it. They ridicule it because they know that it is right, not just for rowing, but throughout sport.

Mr. Allan Rogers: rose——

Mr. Moynihan: Other right hon. and hon. Members want an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that this is a short debate and that many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to take part. All the sedentary interventions and attempts to intervene are at the expensive of time and other hon. Members' speeches.

Mr. Moynihan: To be more specific, the Sports Council estimates that 23 million people now participate in sports, compared to 17 million 10 years ago—an increase of 6 million. We now have more than 1,000 swimming pools, more than 1,100 sports halls and 99 artificial pitches, compared to 30 five years ago. Local authority spending on sport and recreation was estimated by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy at £650 million in 1986–87, a substantial increase in real terms since 1979. The Sports Council's grant for the present financial year is £39 million, compared with £15 million in 1978–79, an increase in real terms of 37 per cent.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the Minister prepared to congratulate my local authority, Ogwr, which is currently building a new swimming pool, even though it is threatened with rate capping because of its action? Will he ensure that it is not rate-capped?

Mr. Moynihan: I happily congratulate the hon. Gentleman's local authority if it has wisely recognised the importance of public provision for sport and recreation in the building of a new swimming pool. I have just given due

credit to local authorities up and down the country for recognising the importance of providing adequate resources and facilities for the development of leisure.
On top of public provision, private sponsorship of sport from £60 million in 1980–81 to more than £160 million last year. The provision of sports facilities is certainly thriving. Our goal must be to maximise their use for wider participation and the development of excellence.
The introduction of competition into the management of local authority sport and leisure facilities will mean more value for money in the running of those services and more incentives for people to use them. The right lion. Member for Small Heath has still not grasped that point, despite my repeated attempts to help him to do so. He persists in misunderstanding. He also continues to ring the alarm bells over recreational land and playing fields in particular. There is no evidence that there has been a net loss when land that has gone out of recreational use is balanced against gains in provision.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and other Members who have taken part in sports debates that it is important that we know in detail the availability of recreational land and playing fields in Britain. Currently, that information is not known by the Government, the Sports Council or the Central Council of Physical Recreation. When my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) brought his Bill before the House he rightly pointed out the need to assess and identify in detail the availability of such land so that we can monitor and increase its use by specific targeting of resources to obtain greater participation. It is participation that we want first and foremost.

Mr. John Carlisle: The House will be grateful for the remarks that my hon. Friend has just made. Will he consider instituting some form of register so that all the Departments—including his own and the Department of Education and Science—and all interested parties know exactly what sporting playing fields are available, so that we can obtain an accurate figure of whether any are being lost?

Mr. Moynihan: I have aleady spoken to the Sports Council about the importance of collating all the information that is available. I believe that that is the best source of information, and it is important to ensure that we bring in as much knowledge as possible, not just about specific facilities, but about their use. I hope that the regional councils for sport and recreation can assist in identifying that information.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Moynihan: It is critical to make progress in order to give other hon. Members a chance to speak.
I shall respond on issues concerning the Sports Council and its membership, to which the right hon. Member for Small Heath devoted much attention. Membership of the council was one of the issues on which I invited comments in my open letter to the chairman on 19 November. Many of those who responded argued that the council as a then was, with 32 members, was too large and unwieldy to be effective. I have considered their responses—and the others—carefully in the light of the royal charter. I wrote


to the chairman of the Central Council of Physical Recreation on the subject again on 13 June and I have considered his replies to me carefully.
It seems clear that the Sports Council will be better able to do the job provided for it by the royal charter with a significantly smaller membership than it has had. The primary aim of the Sports Council is to promote participation. It follows naturally that the pursuit of that aim will also enable us to identify, nurture and develop excellence in sport.
That excellence should be supported from schools to governing bodies by an effective structure geared to serving our promising sportsmen and women. The formation and development of an appropriate and effective structure to take British sport into the 1990s is the challenge faced by the Government, governing bodies, sportsmen and women and underpins the comprehensive review of sport which I am currently undertaking.
Neither grass roots participation nor excellence is furthered by having the Sports Council run by a board that is too big to operate effectively. Thirty-two members are too many. I intend, therefore, to reduce the membership to less than half the level that the council has had. It is my intention not to renew the membership of the seven members whose appointments ran out at the end of June and I have asked a number of other members to resign. I shall be looking to appoint a small number of new members in the next few weeks.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath spoke about the governing bodies of sport. He did not explain how the governing bodies, or anyone else involved in sport, are helped by having a Sports Council too big to carry out effectively the job required of it by the royal charter. Even with 32 members, the council was a long way from representing more than a small proportion of all governing bodies.
Like everyone else connected with sport, the governing bodies will benefit from a more effective Sports Council. It will be for the new council to decide just what its consultative arrangements are to be. I know that the chairman is keen to ensure that close consultation is maintained with the governing bodies. It is inconceivable that the Sports Council could operate without effective consultative arrangements with the governing bodies of sport.

Mr. Rogers: rose——

Mr. Moynihan: The governing bodies will have a major role to play in the future operations of the Sports Council. They will be playing that role——

Mr. Rogers: rose ——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) must not persist.

Mr. Moynihan: They will be playing that role on behalf of sportsmen and women. That is their job.

Mr. Rogers: rose ——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman not hear me? He must not persist in disregarding what I have said.

Mr. Moynihan: Their job and mine is to serve sportsmen and women. I make no secret of my belief that they would he better able to do that job if they encouraged active sportsmen and women to play a greater part in running the organisation.
I held a conference for sportsmen and women in May. It was the first conference of its kind in this country, possibly in Europe, and I was delighted by its success. More than 150 sports people came and many of them contributed a great deal. The conference more than confirmed my belief—I wish it would that of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)—that active sportsmen and women have a great deal to offer in the way that sport is run.
Some governing bodies already involve active sportspeople in their decision-making process. I wish that they all did. I hope that they all will.

Mr. Rogers: rose ——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The way in which we usually conduct our debates is to seek to rebut arguments with which we disagree in the course of debate by making speeches, not by sedentary interventions or seeking to intervene.

Mr. Moynihan: One of the aims of the review of sports policy that I am conducting will be to bring active sportsmen and women much more into the administration of sport, both in running governing bodies and in the development of national sporting policies as a whole. That is why Sebastian Coe, Clive Lloyd, Steve Ovett, Tessa Sanderson, Duncan Goodhew and Jeoff Thomson together make up over 40 per cent. of the membership of the three reviews that I have initiated in my first year of office—reviews on drug abuse in sport, on sport for the disabled, and on sport and recreation provision in the inner cities.
Top-level sport in particular has changed radically in this decade. The pressures, including from the media, financial incentives, commercial interest and the level of competition itself are often intense. Who better can we choose to reflect, consider and implement new approaches to sports policy and sports administration than those coaches and participants, active or recently retired, who are willing and able to help? We need gold medal support in administration and management if we are to expect gold medal performances on the fields of play. We must solve today's problems with today's people. I shall be talking to the Sports Council and other sporting organisations about how we achieve that goal.
I shall now deal with competitive tendering. It is a sign of the weakness of the Opposition's Front-Bench thinking and continued outdated dark age vision of sport that they have to resort to scaremongering about our proposals for competitive tendering. If I interpret their views correctly, they would much prefer to maintain the status quo in local authority sport and leisure facility management. They would duck competition in the provision of services off the track, while purporting to promote competition on the track. They would enshrine for posterity the right of the direct labour organisations to manage facilities, without incentives for efficiency, better marketing and greater use. Worse still, they continue to misunderstand the policy.

Mr. Lofthouse: rose ——

Mr. Moynihan: They talk in their motion of privatisation, failing to understand that competitive tendering offers in-house DLO management a competitive chance to continue in that role. Their motion is defective. On that issue alone it should be withdrawn.
If the Opposition are to be believed, our proposals will undermine that ideal state of affairs and result in the closure of facilities, a massive lock-out of disadvantaged groups and a mushrooming of cowboy private sector operators looking to make a fast buck.

Mr. Lofthouse: rose ——

Mr. Moynihan: That is absolute nonsense. In case some Members had not noticed, we are moving into the 1990s. We are not stuck in the 1970s. We need to bring the sport and leisure service up to date and give it a sound base from which to grow and prosper. I very much doubt that even one local authority or one sports organisation could put its hand on its heart and argue otherwise. Indeed, I understand that a survey, commissioned by the London borough of Greenwich, into consumer satisfaction with its sport and leisure service found that a majority of the residents did not use the publicly provided facilities, not because they did not want to take part in the activities offered, but because they wanted, and preferred, to use privately run facilities.

Mr. Lofthouse: rose ——

Mr. Moynihan: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have clarified the Government's proposals.
The service found that public awareness of the services provided was low and that many within the borough's disadvantaged groups did not feel that the facilities had been provided for use by them.
In short, while the borough's provision may be good, there seems to be little effective marketing of its facilities, and the very groups within the community, about whom we have heard great concern, are not using the facilities. I am not sure where that leaves the right hon. Gentleman's case for no change to current management practices. Under competitive tendering the local authority would have to be more imaginative in its marketing if it was to compete successfully with private sector bids for contracts.
Our proposals for competitive tendering will bring forward the achievement of sport for all, in a way that has manifestly not been achieved under the current closed shop regime.

Mr. Rogers: rose ——

Mr. Moynihan: We are creating a market for management contracts, supported by effective controls vested in the local authorities. Where marketing exists, the consumer gets a better deal. Our proposals would yield a greater use of existing facilities by all groups within the community, through more effective management and marketing. At the same time, we have listened to, and taken very full account of, the main concerns expressed by local authorities and sports facility users. We are not proposing to allow the free market to control completely the pricing levels of facilities.

Mr. Ian McCartney: rose——

Mr. Moynihan: If they so choose, local authorities can determine what charges will he made to all, or to particular groups of users. In other words, the control of pricing is

written into the order. By the order I mean the proposals that will come before the House, which will deal specifically with this and a number of related issues for the management of public sector local authority sport and recreation facilities.

Mr. Lofthouse: I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he is not aware of a major consideration affecting the northern part of the country. Many of the mining communities have famous rugby league teams, such as those in Castleford, Featherstone and Wakefield. Because the mining industry has run down, local authorities have had to purchase two of the grounds. Under the new policy, what will happen to those rugby league teams? Will the local authority have to put them out to private management, which could mean the death of the rugby league clubs? How will the policy affect the teams whose grounds are now owned by the local authority?

Mr. Moynihan: Many sporting facilities are owned by local authorities and run by clubs, not least Rugby League, Rugby Union and football clubs throughout the country. While those facilities are run by the clubs on local authority grounds, they will not be put out to private sector management or to competitive tendering. They will go out to competitive tendering only when employees of the council are running the sports facilities. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point and enabled me to clarify it.
Throughout the country many Rugby League and Rugby Union clubs manage themselves and the clubs run their own operations. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in assent. If no employee of the local authority is running the club—we know of no Rugby Union or Rugby League club being run by a local authority, but I should be happy to learn of any—the club will not be put out to competitive tendering, because the management is already in the hands of the club.

Mr. Lofthouse: What will happen if the council has to purchase the ground and is assisting in maintaining it?

Mr. Moynihan: If the council purchases the facility, there is no intention of privatising it. We are talking specifically about competitive tendering for the management of facilities in council management and under direct labour organisation management, not about private sports clubs which occupy council-owned sports grounds.

Mr. Rogers: I thank the Minister for giving way. What would happen if a bowling club ran and operated a bowling green on a long lease from a local authority, but all the maintenance of the club and its grounds was carried out by the local authority?

Mr. Moynihan: The bowling green would continue to be managed by the bowling club. Any council facilities, such as mowing, would go out to competitive tendering under the order. [Interruption.] When Opposition Members get a clear and direct answer, they continue to misinterpret it.
Such things as pricing policy, facilities for disadvantaged groups, the timing of access to facilities and subsidies will continue to be dealt with by local authorities if they so wish. The order relates specifically to management contracts, which will leave a private sector management team with the opportunity of marketing


facilities far more effectively, because every additional person that uses the facilities provides additional income for the management. That is sport for all personified.

Mr. Terry Lewis: rose——

Mr. Moynihan: I have spoken enough on that issue on two occasions in the House. I am glad that Opposition Members agree with that, so I shall happily move on.
I have no doubt that in coming months, particularly during our consultations on the terms of the order to implement our proposals, we shall return to many of the issues that I have mentioned today. We shall bring forward a draft order that will go out to full consultation, and we shall debate the result of that consultation exercise on the draft order.
I now come to a subject that has little to do with sport, except for the harm that it does. I am referring to the hooliganism associated with football. The House will know that the Prime Minister and other Ministers met the football authorities last week to discuss the dreadful events in West Germany last week and the continuing problems of hooliganism in the last domestic season. We have made considerable progress since the agreement reached between the Government and the football authorities in February 1987; but the problem is still there, and we have to do more.
The Prime Minister told the football authorities of the action that the Government were taking. Considerable police resources have already been devoted to football, backed by restrictions on alcohol under the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol) Act 1985 and new powers for the police and courts under the Public Order Act 1986. The police will intensify their efforts to deal with criminal behaviour. The Government are considering how better to enforce restrictions on the sale of alcohol in the vicinity of football grounds and ways of prohibiting convicted football hooligans from attending matches here and abroad.
The Prime Minister welcomed the decision of the FA to withdraw from the friendly international match arranged in Italy in November and to reconsider other such matches arranged for next year. We pressed the football authorities to establish a national membership scheme to control access to all Football League matches. I regret that the football authorities do not believe that such a scheme could be introduced on a voluntary basis. The Government will therefore bring forward proposals for legislation to give statutory backing to a national membership scheme. A working party under my chairmanship, consisting of representatives of the football authorities, the Government and the police, will begin work very soon to look at all the details, and to take account of the points that the right hon. Member for Small Heath has raised.

Mr. Denis Howell: Will this working party include any football supporters, such as the National Federation of Football Supporters, which I have always found very responsible and extremely helpful? It is very important to have on the working party people who watch football from the terraces.

Mr. Moynihan: The working party will have representatives from the Football Association and the

Football League, who I hope are ardent supporters of football. As for taking advice from various bodies which represent football fans, we shall talk to both major bodies and consult them on their reactions to the detailed schemes that we are working up, but we will not talk only to them. We shall talk to a range of computer companies about card schemes. We will consider bringing forward as comprehensive and foolproof a scheme as possible to deter the ugliness of hooliganism within the ground.
It is no use saying that there are no problems in the ground. Everybody knows that there are problems inside as well as outside. From the first day of the season at Scarborough last year, to the last day inside the Chelsea ground, there were problems, and we must tackle them. The package of measures put in place in February 1987 must deter hooliganism inside grounds. We must also face the problems outside grounds, which were prominent in the domestic season and during the European championships.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath mentioned my support for the FA in its preparation inside grounds for the championships. I congratulated it. There was not one incident inside any of the three grounds in which our first round matches were played. The problems in West Germany occurred outside grounds. We are tackling that through UEFA and the Council of Ministers for Sport, where we are taking appropriate measures to tackle the problem. It is no use allowing potential hooligans to travel to grounds knowing that they can get in.
I have noted with deep regret the support that the right hon. Member for Small Heath gave the authorities in their view that, in case of there being problems outside grounds, we should let people in. We must stop that. A national membership scheme would stop that problem arising in the domestic season.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister said, when asked, that of the 2,500 league matches that were played last year, only eight caused him great difficulty. When I said that he had supported and congratulated the FA, I said that I had here his document mentioning the problem inside grounds, but a memorandum that he sent me is clearly designed to deal with people's activities outside grounds. The Minister ought to face the facts. Of course football clubs have a slight difficulty inside grounds, but the problem is outside grounds, in society, and that is where we have to tackle it.

Mr. Moynihan: I deeply regret that the right hon. Gentleman believes that problems such as those that occurred inside Scarborough are minor and are not a serious issue that needs tackling. It requires total commitment from the football authorities, the Government and the police to stamp out the problem of hooliganism wherever it occurs. That is why we are proposing measures for inside and outside grounds.
Although there were eight major incidents inside grounds, we must not ignore the fact that there were 6,000 arrests associated with football hooliganism inside and outside grounds in the domestic season last year. That is a serious problem of law and order and it is associated with our national game. It requires the complete determination of everyone who has the game at heart, to say nothing of law and order.
I regret that it is necessary for us to legislate for a national membership scheme, but there comes a time when it is the Government's duty to act to protect society from


some elements in it. We must do that, however, as the measures taken so far have not worked as effetively as we would have liked.

Mr. Michael Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that a contributory factor to hooliganism on the terraces must be the behaviour of players on the field? Will he include among those whom he consults referees, managers and players' representatives to see whether we can re-establish rather more traditional standards of sportsmanship and behaviour on the field? People on the terraces often see dreadful behaviour on the field, and hear the foulest language and abuse of referees, which often sparks off bad behaviour on the terraces.

Mr. Moynihan: I agree that it is essential that our top sportsmen and women, whether in football or other games, should set an example. They are looked up to by many young people who enjoy sport, and if they see players ignoring or rejecting authority on the field of play, they naturally, although wrongly, follow that example. It is essential that a good example be set. I congratulate Liverpool football club on having the fewest bookings last season and on playing outstanding football. That should be more widely publicised. It is a credit to the game, and that example should be followed by other clubs. The FA should take tough disciplinary action over major incidents when professional fouls, which have become all too common recently, or other problems associated with bad behaviour on the pitch arise.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps I might lower the temperature a little. Can the Minister explain how the card membership system will control the mayhem which sometimes occurs in the centre of Manchester when there is a full house game at Old Trafford or Maine road? That is the crux of the matter.

Mr. Moynihan: Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I said. There is a twin-track approach. We must tackle problems inside and outside grounds. With regard to the latter, we are reviewing exclusion orders, attendance orders and probation orders. We must have punishments that deter hooligans associated with football from behaving badly outside grounds.
Membership cards can exclude people convicted of football-related hooliganism from the ground. That should be a significant deterrent, as one of the recurring problems is that people gain access to a ground three months after receiving an exclusion order which may, for example, have been served just before the summer. They may have a shorter exclusion order, which is of no deterrent effect. That card can be used as a deterrent to stop people who have been convicted of hooligan-related offences going to a football ground of any of the 92 clubs, not only for a year or two, but I hope for much longer.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend consult the football authorities and Ministers about the success that we have had in Scotland with the alcohol problem inside and outside grounds? Will he comment on my firm belief that unless we have custodial sentences for hooligans we shall never stamp out the problem, especially on the continent? Will he have discussions with Governments on the continent to explain that releasing

hooligans the morning after a match and sending them home with a pat on the back does no good to anyone? Custodial sentences are the only way forward.

Mr Moynihan: I am glad that my hon. Friend echoes my firm belief that we need effective deterrents. It was clear that a number of people who were detained overnight in German police stations regarded that as a free bed for the night—they had nowhere else to stay and got into lights as a result. That is appalling. We must make sure that punishments fit the crime.
Two interesting points can be learned from my hon. Friend's comments about alcohol in Scotland. One is that there is strong policing there, and I support that, as I am sure all hon. Members do. The second is that the Scots started earlier with alcohol restrictions. Lessons are to be learned from both initiatives.
As for the membership scheme, I hope that hon. Members on both sides recognise that we must act, as the measures taken so far have not reached the level of service to football or deterrents in law and order that we need. Decent football supporters—the vast majority of those who go to football matches—are as frustrated as anyone by the continuing blight of hooliganism and violence that is ruining their game. Of course hooliganism and violence are not confined to football, but football provides a focus for the thugs to operate on. I believe that decent supporters will welcome a package of measures that offer some prospect of curbing the problem.
I want the interests of the game and of law and order to be served. I do not want for ever to be talking about police containing the problem, and at what cost. Clubs should be thriving businesses providing entertaining football with trouble-free crowds watching in comfort. We must have a more businesslike approach and greater professionalism throughout football. Club boardrooms must play their full part and the FA and the Football League must show imagination and leadership. I want our football clubs to be more a part of their communities.
Clubs and communities should benefit one another. I see future chairmen and directors being proud of the part that their clubs play in local communities. The first attraction and concern will be the game on Saturday, but we must get away from the idea that the ground is unused between match days and is left as an empty mausoluem. I want directors to think of themselves as running important sport and leisure assets. The football in the community project fits in well here, and I hope that it goes from strength to strength.

Mr. Michael Foot: What calculation has the hon. Gentleman made of the reduction in crowds —particularly for poorer clubs—that would result from the introduction of his scheme? What financial support does he suppose he will introduce to assist the clubs that are hit by his methods?

Mr. Moynihan: We can look at examples in English football now, not least at Luton, the club of which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North is chairman. Initially there was a considerable drop in membership, but then the families started coming back to Luton and attendances went up.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Has the hon. Gentleman been there?

Mr. Moynihan: Yes, I have been there; yes, I have seen; yes, I have spoken to families at the turnstile, who will come only to home games and will not travel away. That is not surprising. There are no incidents in Luton. It is not a matter of "Fortress Luton", as it was before the full membership scheme banning away supporters was introduced.
The clubs should finance the scheme. I seriously believe that there are terrific commercial opportunities for the membership cards— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I can hear only one hon. Member at a time. Mr. Moynihan.

Mr. Moynihan: I firmly believe that there will be substantial commercial benefits for sponsors who are associated with a national membership scheme that has such a large number of different supporters and therefore access to a large customer base.
Much of what I have described represents the beginning of our blueprint for the 1990s. Sport does not, and should not, stand detached from the rest of society in this country or elsewhere. It must be able to change, adapt, grow and prosper, just as other activities, such as business and trade, do. Its administration and organisation, of which the Sports Council is an important part, must be constantly under review. I have begun that process and I intend to continue with it for the sake of a healthy and prosperous sports structure that delivers benefits to all members of our community.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I have to tell the Minister that I have never heard anything as daft in my life. One can kid some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time. The Minister kids no one with his proposals. They are shabby and will act against the people that so desperately need the facilities that local authorities provide.
The Minister can help clubs in the Football League by enabling them to get shot of the police charges that they have to stand. The Government did that in Wapping. Surely they can help to provide proper police control by paying these charges.
I must correct the Minister on one point. Nothing that the Government have done has increased the number of people who participate in sport. All the credit goes to local authorities for ensuring the existence of the facilities for people to use. The Government have not spent more money on funding sports facilities. They have reduced the rate support grant by one third since they came to office, and unfortunately leisure amenities have been hard hit. Local people have made up the difference in local authorities' spending.
People ask how to become a member of the Sports Council. Obviously, standing beside the Minister on a political platform helps.
A point about competitive tendering: we should compare like with like. If local authorities are to allow the private sector to come in, the Government must remove their shackles so that they can compete with the private sector. For instance, Metro Catering cannot move into the private sector because of Government restraints.
Private profits mean high prices. Kids from these areas will not be able to use the facilities. When I was a kid I

learnt to swim in what was known as the brown waters, where we were unsupervised by adults and in danger. We could not afford to use the swimming baths in the centre of Doncaster—we could not afford the transport—so we went over the fields unsupervised. Many children have drowned through lack of supervision. The Minister should be concerned about depriving kids of supervised training, without which they may disappear to some canal water.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend spoke about local authorities providing resources for sportsmen. A local authority is providing resources for Max Robertson, the Olympic hurdler and 400-metre British record holder. This Government, in the year of training for the Olympics, have taken away his benefit and his housing benefit because he is not available for work as he is training to represent Britain in the Olympics. That is the way the Government behave when a local authority provides free facilities so that someone can train for the Olympics.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am sure that the Minister will have to ask my hon. Friend for the name, so that that young lad can be adequately financed to carry out his training. That is known as putting one's money where one's mouth is.
The old Ardwick urban district council built a leisure centre which increased the number of children who were able to swim. The Doncaster metropolitan district has now spent £23 million building a sports and leisure complex to ensure that Doncaster has one of the best leisure facilities in the northern region. The Queen laid the foundation stone, and we were extremely proud of it. Doncaster raised the funds to build that centre by selling off council-owned land to build debt-free. Because debt charges affect prices, building something debt-free lowers its price.
The Minister is kidding people about the residuary bodies looking after the school and local authority land transferred to them. That is not happening. Residual bodies are selling land. They are flooding the market and lowering prices, but that is to the benefit of their friends and colleagues, who are able to buy.
One of the most—if not the most—deprived areas in the country is Mexborough. I do not see the private sector rushing in to build facilities for the people there. It was Doncaster council's intention, following the completion of the Doncaster leisure centre, to ensure that there were adequate facilities for the people of Mexborough to enjoy. They created much of the wealth of this country through their blood, sweat and misery working down the mines. They kept industry going, and they have the right to the facilities that the private sector will not provide but the local authority will. The Minister's proposals will hinder the progress of providing such facilities for the people of Mexborough.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), who made a reasoned argument, which will no doubt be well listened to by my hon. Friend the Minister, as he has voiced the opposition to the Government's proposals felt in his part of the world. His speech was in a rather better temper than that of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who, characteristically, kept the House in suspense for over 50 minutes, being egged on by some of the yobbish tendency sitting on


the Benches behind him. One got the impression that his speech was probably his swan song on this subject in the House.
There is no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Minister rightly pointed out, that the right hon. Gentleman is a man of the 1970s, with the policies and remedies of the 1970s. We are now into the 1980s and we have to face the reality of the situation. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member is now back in the Chamber. We need 1980s solutions to 1980s problems. That is why we were pleased to hear what may well be his last speech on the subject.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his spirited defence of the Government's admirable record. He was too modest to mention the many other measures that he and he alone has taken—on the drug scene, to improve the lot of the disabled in sport, and within the inner cities. The concept of a Minister responsible for sport who is interested in sport and sportsmen and sportswomen, and who dearly loves those sports that he played and which he wishes to encourage others to play is welcome. My hon. Friend is a man of great calibre, and we are lucky to have him lead us in this debate.
My opinion is different from that of the right hon. Member for Small Heath. He always wants it both ways. He accused my hon. Friend of using the Sports Council as the "executive arm"—my hon. Friend has used that phrase —and accused the Government of not taking enough interest in sport, not spending enough money on it and of interfering with local authorities and their policies on sport. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
Many hon. Members do not think that there should be a Minister responsible for sport—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), is one of them. In my early and rather green days in this place, I signed an early-day motion supporting that view. However, having a Minister of such calibre and having money to spend on sport puts a different complexion on the matter. The right hon. Member must decide whether or not he wants Government interference.

Mr. Alan Meale: Is it right that the Minister responsible for sport should treat sport as a social or economic problem? That was the impression that the Minister gave me tonight. Is it not time that Ministers decided to treat sport seriously, and set up a Select Committee on sport—as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, sports involve millions of people—so that at last we can have a say, rather than having a Government who bring issues of sport to the Chamber only when problems occur with particular aspects of it?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will know that I share and support many of his views. I do not want to ruin his political career by saying that. Some attention should be given to his interesting idea for a Select Committee, an idea that has much support in his party, and on which he tabled an early-day motion. I am sympathetic to that idea, but he has misjudged the Government by saying that we regard sport purely on a social basis. As the right hon. Member for Small Heath said, sport is big business, and for that reason and that reason only, the hon. Gentleman's idea will commend itself to the House.
I admire the courage of my hon. Friend the Minister in taking a decision about the management of the Sports Council that could not have been easy. It was that the

Sports Council had become too large and unwieldy—so large that its meetings could not take place in its headquarters and it had to hire rooms from the British Medical Association in its adjacent building. It is remarkable that it had grown into such a dinosaur that it was representing no one. My hon. Friend is right to bring into the Sports Council more active sportsmen and sportswomen who are involved, day to day, in both participation in, and, in some cases, the administration of, sport. The new, slimmed-down Sports Council will be of benefit to sport in general and to those associated with the work that the council does.
I fully support, as I have said publicly in the presence of Labour Members, the Government's intentions about competitive tendering. If everything in the garden were lovely, and every leisure facility and swimming pool run by a local authority were making a profit, there would be no need for the exercise that my hon. Friend the Minister is proposing. If a Labour Member could point to a local authority that is making a profit, for the value and benefit of its ratepayers, on a particular facility, and that has been joined by many others, I would give way to that hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said, will the hon. Member tell the House why he believes that it is a sine qua non, especially of swimming pools, that they must make a profit before they can exist and be run by local authorities? Surely they are there to provide a service, especially for our young people.

Mr. Carlisle: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he must answer, as we all do, to the ratepayers in his borough as to whether that swimming pool is giving ratepayers full value for money.

Mr. Spearing: It takes them off the streets.

Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I shall answer his point. He is right to assume that in many cases swimming is a social and educational service. The Government do not dissent from that view, because they have written into the proposed legislation the fact that local authorities and education authorities can subsidise where necessary. Each borough council must ask itself whether that pool is being run to its maximum efficiency. There is nothing wrong in that question being asked and competitive tendering being invited to ensure that ratepayers obtain maximum value. Opposition Members do not like that, because they do not believe in value for money, but my constituents and ratepayers do.

Mr. David Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that a swimming pool in Streatham has lost £750,000 in one year?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend will know that the list is endless. The difference is that the few pools that have taken on private management—although not all of them—have turned in a profit and are still providing a good service to those areas. The pools are full, or they would not be making a profit.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be causing confusion where there is none. Any fool can make a profit. The district of my constituency has the biggest sports centre in Britain, with a throughput of 1·1 million people a year. It charges 90p for swimming. If it was handed over to Mecca, it could


charge £1·90 and it would make a profit. Plenty of people would still use the pool and pay £1·90, but not those who live in the area. People will be drawn in from other areas, and excluded from using that pool will be those who cannot pay £1·90 for a swimming session. I know that it is not the way that things are done in Cape Town, but can the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a social concept, too? If all that we are talking about is profit, he wins the argument. If we are talking about any sort of social decency, he loses the argument.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman was either not listening to what I said or thought that I was speaking Afrikaans and did not understand. In response to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I agreed that a form of social responsibility is contained in the proposals, in that the local authority can subsidise a facility. We hope that educational authorities will take the same initiative, but what is wrong with asking whether that pool is well managed? The proposals will provide great interest and a great opportunity to those who want to manage such facilities. They will introduce a new era of management into our pools and leisure facilities. At the same time, it will be of direct benefit to ratepayers and to those who wish to use the facilities.

Mr. Allen McKay: The pools and leisure centres are already managed by professional managers, who were appointed before a brick was laid to advise local authorities on how to obtain maximum benefit from their facilities. The managers that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are already in place and will run the centres exactly as they do now.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman makes my point—all is not well. Is he happy to ask his ratepayers to continue the bad management of facilities for the sake of political dogma? Is it right to allow that position to exist and not to say to the ratepayers, "We believe in value for money."? My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has given an example of a facility that is losing thousands of pounds, yet Opposition Members seem to be happy for that to continue. We believe that we should examine those facilities.
I fully support the principles that have been stated. The benefits will be enormous, not only to the local community but to the ratepayers. Facilities will improve. Many facilities are completely out of date and local authorities either do not have the cash or, perhaps because of Government policies, cannot put the money in. Local authorities can go to the private sector and obtain an injection of funds into those facilities. Where that has happened— —

Mr. Denis Howell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I will take him to Richmond to show him the excellent facilities there. The pool is full all the time and the facility is making a profit.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath and the Minister mentioned playing fields. The right hon. Gentleman was right to point to the conclusion of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which I believe came originally from the Secondary Heads Association,

that many of our playing fields are inadequate and not in the condition that we would like. Many hon. Members will concede that that problem should be arrested.
The main problem is that we do not know what playing facilities we have. When I introduced the Sports Fields and Recreational Facilities Bill, I thought it remarkable that officials of the Department of the Environment and of the Department of Education and Science had no means of telling exactly how many playing fields there were, and whether they were sports facilities in schools, in factories or in the private or public sectors. It is time that we resolved that problem by introducing a register.
Before the right hon. Member for Small Heath basks in the pleasure and the honour that I am giving him for helping me to introduce that measure, I say to him that. although the motion talks about
Government intentions to privatise the management of local authority sports facilities, and the sale of school playing fields",
laying the blame at the Government's door, he and his hon. Friends should ask themselves whether their local authorities are guiltless. After directive 909 from the Department of Education and Science gave education authorities the ability to sell parts of playing fields as school rolls drop, many Labour authorities took that initiative and sold the fields.
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, if a Labour Government came back to power, they would introduce legislation to stop the sale of playing fields? The right hon. Gentleman will understand, as do most rational people and organisations, including the National Playing Fields Association, that some fields will not be saved. I do not dispute that policy. The House, local authorities and sports council should know exactly how many playing fields exist and how many have been sold over the past few years.
One problem which has been in our minds over the past few weeks, months and—for those of us who have been Members somewhat longer—decades is the violence associated with football. The problem always seems to rear its head. Many Conservative Members share the concern of the right hon. Member for Small Heath about the membership scheme and its effect on democracy. He said that it was an affront to civil liberty. Undoubtedly, football is in crisis yet again. It has been in crisis almost since the right hon. Member for Small Heath entered Parliament. Just when we seem to be getting on top of the problem, it rears its head again—often because it is lit up by the media and sometimes because of a challenge in Europe, as occurred in the past month. The football authorities—league and association must understand that patience is running out, not only in the House but among constituents. The majority of our constituents want peace and harmony in our towns on a Saturday afternoon. The Government have taken the decision to legislate on membership schemes extremely reluctantly. I think that they understand the great worry of Conservative Members about the liberty issue.

Dr. Godman: I am a supporter of Greenock Morton, which unfortunately was relegated from the premier league. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when he and the Minister speak about national membership schemes and the football authorities, they are referring to matters exclusively English? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this scheme will not apply to Scotland?

Mr. Carlisle: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I sympathise with him in his dilemma and am sure that his team will bounce back if his enthusiasm is shared on the field next season. The proposals are restricted to the 92 English clubs and do not apply to Scotland.
I have represented Luton for nine years. Matters came to a head in the FA cup game with Millwall. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) will explain this matter more fully if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The membership scheme in Luton has brought three things to our town. First, it has brought peace on a Saturday afternoon. For every football fan who goes to watch Luton play, four or five people go to Luton for other reasons—for example, to shop or see their family. We now have a peaceful town on a Saturday afternoon. We are grateful to the club for the membership scheme which it introduced.
Secondly, the scheme has brought responsibility. Those who go to the club are responsible citizens. If they were not responsible, they would not apply for a card in the first place. We are proud of that and of our membership of well over 20,000.
Thirdly, the scheme has brought pride in our town and our club. Luton has rightly been held up as the club that has tried to tackle the awful problem surrounding the game. The police—the few that appear—can now go home at half-time.
We should like a national membership scheme. We have always felt that the away scheme was inadequate. Every person who wants to go to a football match should be able to become a member, and I see nothing wrong with that. The right hon. Member for Small Heath talked rather mockingly about clubs. He knows full well that many football games are all-ticket matches. It is as though everyone is a member. A person cannot get into the club, even with the help of a little man behind the grill, without a ticket. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is not here. He knows that it is almost impossible to get a ticket to get into Cardiff Arms park, but a ticket is needed to get in. However, people do not riot. If they have forged tickets or cannot get in, they accept it.
Some provision must be made before people go to a sporting fixture. The Government propose that those who want to go to a game must make provision for it. There is nothing wrong with having a national membership scheme. It could be financed through a central system. An enormous amount of money could be generated by the company which won the order to use a mailing list or which carried advertisements. My hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that the clubs should bear part of the brunt of the cost. It was a confused public who last week saw Paul Gascoigne sold to Tottenham Hotspur for £2 million while football clubs plead poverty and say that they cannot afford this type of scheme.

Mr. Wilson: rose— —

Mr. Carlisle: I have given way once already to the hon. Gentleman.
We must all take the responsibility, and I take the point about law and order in general. But at the same time the football authorities must realise that our patience and that of the British people is at an end. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister is right to introduce the scheme, which will receive massive support in the House and outside.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition. My hon. Friends and I will have little difficulty in following him into the Lobby in due course.
This has been a sharply political debate and in some respects it may herald the end of what I had perhaps rather ingenuously assumed to be a bipartisan or even a tri-partisan approach to sport. The Minister—I do not say this lightly—must take some responsibility for that. Although he may have become a good Minister for the Government, I regret to say that I believe that he has become a poor Minister for sport. I do not know how he conceives his responsibility, but, as one who actively participated in sport for many years, I conceive his responsibility as being to fight for sport, to extract every last penny that he can from the Government and to influence every policy of the Government so that sporting opportunity is increased and participation widened.
I regret to say that the Minister has been party to policies for sport that are more noted for their political consistency with Government doctrine than for their contribution to recreational opportunity or sporting excellence. Nothing exhibits that more eloquently than his attitude towards the Sports Council. He wants—quite legitimately—to involve more of those who have been recently active participants in international sport. There is nothing new in that. The right hon. Member for Small Heath did precisely that in 1965 when he had the good sense to allow his eye to fall on me and to invite me to become a member of the United Kingdom Sports Council when I was still engaged in active participation in international sport.
If, by including more of those who are either currently or recently active, the effect is to cause an exclusion from the Sports Council of the wide range of interests that make up sports in the United Kingdom, inevitably a council will be created that is out of touch in material respects and that lacks a proper balance of interest. It must be said that the council was established by royal charter to give it independence. To describe it, in a phrase that I suspect the Minister may come to regret, as the Government's executive arm, at best is constitutionally doubtful and at worst confirms the suspicion that the Minister sees it as no more than an adjunct of his own Department.
The Minister's attitude towards the issue of violence associated with football has already been the subject of considerable discussion in the debate. I shall not add to that, save to say that the Government's proposals assume that all football clubs are the same, that they have the same resources and the same pattern of spectator attendance; and, are prepared to contemplate that the proposals may have the effect of preventing casual attendance, which for many football clubs is an extremely important part of their income.
No doubt we can have an unproductive debate about whether football is the cause of violence or whether violence arises from other causes, but one cannot ignore the fact that there has been violence in Spain caused by British holidaymakers and that there is violence in otherwise previously quite peaceful rural areas. I suspect


that if we find the causes of those outbursts of violence, we may find information that will assist us in dealing with the cause of violence associated with football.
What is the purpose of privatisation? If it is truly to make more efficient use of resources, who could possibly oppose it? But it must be said that local authority management of sports facilities is concerned with the achievement not simply of profit, but of social and sporting objectives, which may transcend the narrow issue of the precise terms or form of the management of a particular facility.
How will the pursuit of profit enable local authorities to achieve such objectives? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no reduction in opening hours if facilities are privatised? Can he guarantee that there will be no increase in admission charges? Can he guarantee that minority interests will be properly protected in the use of such facilities? Can he guarantee that revenue saved will be available to be spent on new and additional facilities?
What will the Minister do if lower standards of maintenance become established which have long-term consequences that lead ultimately to greater costs? At the moment much of the private management of facilities is concentrated on facilities which have a tourist and leisure component. I want to know—and the House is entitled to know—how competitive tendering will help in the provision of facilities for high-level training for outstanding competitors.
The Minister and I both had the good fortune to participate in the Olympic games—he with rather more success than I, it has to be said. Each of us had the benefit of an education and attendance at universities where the quality of facilities was such as to allow us the opportunity to realise our full sporting potential. I remember the days when there was hardly a proper running track in the city of Glasgow. I remember the days when people used to train in public parks. Because they were not students of the university, they were excluded from those facilities.
The great upsurge in facilities which took place in the 1960s and 1970s was financed by the public purse with a public purpose in mind. Where does the Minister think that those extraordinary athletes who now form part of the United Kingdom team came from? Where does he think that the exuberant black athletes who are likely to win medals for us at the summer Olympic games came from? They came not from the cloisters of universities, but from the publicly provided facilities in the inner cities.
The Minister wants a programme for sport. I will give him one. First, exempt sporting bodies, including the British Olympic Association, from paying corporation tax, and £3·5 million will go back into British sport. Let us have nationwide mandatory rates relief for local sports clubs. Let us have tax relief to encourage sponsorship. The Minister referred to sponsorship. Let us encourage more of it by giving tax relief for that purpose. Let us remove VAT from subscriptions to clubs, at least for those under 21.
It is a pity that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury finds it necessary to leave the Chamber at this point.
As part of that programme, let us encourage the multiple use of publicly owned facilities, such as schools, which for too much of the week lie empty and unused. What are the Government going to do about that? Finally,

let us stop Government interference in sport. Sportsmen and sports bodies know best how to manage their own affairs.
If the Minister would fight for that programme, he would have the support of the whole House, and certainly of all the sporting interests in the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Evans: It is my belief that the success of sport is determined by those who are running it. I believe that we have not only a poor soccer side but a pretty awful cricket side as well, and I am not all that happy with our tennis players either.
About 20 years ago, the cricket authority abdicated its responsibility to young cricket players by producing wickets at county level that produced results. People loved to go and watch the Denis Comptons of this world score hundreds between start of play and lunchtime, but the wickets that were produced approximately 20 years ago had a serious effect on the game. That complete dedication to getting results in county matches was transferred to minor county cricket, then to club cricket, and then to school cricket. It was not necessary to prepare the wicket properly and we have now lost the art of preparing the wickets on which the game is played. Unfortunately, for over 20 years players have not been taught to bat properly and bowlers have only to run in and wait for the wicket to do the work. Our test side is the poor relation of all other test sides and that is the responsibility of the Test and County Cricket Board and not the responsibility of the Government or the House.
We have weak management in the TCCB and weak part-time selectors. We have seen England's opening batsman knock over his wicket when given out and we have seen the captain arguing with the umpire. I do not know why he was not sent home that evening. That is the sort of image being presented to our youngsters. We must ask the people who run cricket to resign so that we may get back to playing the game properly. If we do that, in 10 years we may produce a side capable of beating other nations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said that the Lawn Tennis Association was run by a load of upper-class twits. Anyone who looks at our tennis players will sympathise with that view, because we have not produced a men's champion at Wimbledon for 52 years, or a ladies' champion for 12 years. We should ask the LTA where all the money is going and why we cannot produce a tennis star—not 10, but one.
Why do we not have a man in the top 100 players or a woman in the top 50? The reason is simple. It is that over the last 20 to 30 years, the coaching and facilities provided by the LTA, the governing body of British tennis, have not been sufficient. Stefan Edberg lives in London and was coached by an English coach who offered his services to our tennis players but who was told by the upper-class twits that he was not needed. That is a mirror of what has gone on in lawn tennis for the last 20 to 40 years.
The football authorities abdicated not last Thursday at the Prime Minister's meeting but in the mid-1960s, when they agreed with players who negotiated contracts that the game could not afford. That was when the trouble started. The manager of Leeds United said that it was not a game but a war. From that moment on, the game started to deteriorate and the number of supporters who went to


enjoy the sport started to decrease. Because of the way that that team played, using every possible infringement within the law, the game started to decline. We saw the start of the professional foul, the taking of five yards along the touchline and the wasting of time with a minute to go. The offside tactic made the game boring, the crowd became frustrated and trouble broke out on the terraces.
Where is British football now? It is not in Europe and may not even be in the World Cup. We have lost half our supporters in 20 years, because gates have dropped from 40 million 18 million. In that time we have lost two thirds of the professionals and public perception is that football is the root of hooliganism and the breakdown of law and order in and around football grounds. Hon. Members have mentioned that.
Identity cards are about separating football fans, 99·99 per cent. of whom are very good supporters of th game. I want to see a national scheme for identity cards so that we can separate the criminal from the football fan. I am trying to get football off the hook.

Mr. Wilson: If 99·9 per cent. of football fans are decent people—we all agree with that—is it not approaching the matter from entirely the wrong end to introduce a draconian scheme to sort out the 0·1 per cent.? Would it not be better for the Government, who make a lot of noise about law and order, to pin down the 0·1 per cent. as they have so conspicuously failed to do over the past decade?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. I shall put my argument another way. Public perception is that football is the root of the problems in our cities. Football is made responsible for every breakdown in law and order in and around football grounds. Where there is no football ground, someone only has to put a scarf around his neck and say, "I am a football fan," for his crime to be hung round the neck of football.
It would protect the identity of football if it did not have every single crime committed in and around a football ground blamed on it. People say, "It wasn't Liverpool fans or football fans who were to blame at Heysel stadium." Nobody knows. We do not even know who is a football fan and who is not. A national identity card scheme would mean that if somebody misbehaved it would not be football's responsibility, but the responsibility of the Home Office and the police. It seems that it is being made football's responsibility at the moment, and that is wrong.
At Luton we had tremendous problems of violence. We introduced a membership scheme, and although it would not be suitable for football nationally, it has worked for Luton. It is proved beyond doubt that we have removed violence from the game at Luton. We have not had a single arrest inside or outside the ground for two seasons. We have brought families back into the ground and the Arndale centre does not have to close from 4.40 pm to 5.40 pm every other Saturday. There have been 34 arrests at away games and, lo and behold, not one of those arrested was a Luton member.
I said to the police, "Don't talk to Luton Town about those 34 arrests. They were not members of Luton Town Football club." The Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire police would agree that there has been no increase in violence or trouble in those counties on Saturday afternoons. When those yobboes, bullies and cowards realised that they would have to fill in an application form, they disappeared

and their gangs broke up because Luton is no longer a place in which to meet to cause mayhem on a Saturday afternoon.
I am sure that the national identity scheme will be sponsored, that a lottery will be held and that up to 6 million people will pay £ 1 a year to join in the lottery. There will be a prize of £50,000 every Saturday for 20 Saturdays and the other £3 million or £4 million will go into football.
I have every hope that a national identity card scheme will make football look the game it is. It will bring families back into the clubs. It is the big clubs that are nervous of the national identity scheme, not the small clubs. The scheme will be their saviour because mum will suddenly allow dad to take his son to the football game. Few wives will allow their son or daughter to be taken to a football ground at the moment. We have to make the ground a place that is perceived by the family to be safe to go to on a Saturday afternoon.
The first two years of the scheme will be difficult, but in about seven years the 18 million attendances will have gone up to 30 million, we shall return to the heyday of football and people will be able to carry on their normal Saturday business. Twenty years ago, people were proud to own a house near a football ground and those days will return because the Minister has had the courage to face up to football's problems; and he will solve those problems in the process.

Mr. David Blunkett: It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), as chairman of Luton football club, and the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) got their act together. We have the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield describing the All England Lawn Tennis Association as a bunch of upper-class twits for not making the performance of our tennis players more acceptable and competitive, although it makes a substantial profit and is not run by the local authority, and we have the hon. Member for Luton, North describing local authorities as incompetent because they do not make a profit.
As was said so ably by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), it is clear that sport and recreation are not intended to make a profit. I do not know whether the Minister felt that he was more a croupier than a cox when he was involved in that activity. If he had been organising the first major Athenian games or the games at Olympus, I wonder whether they would have been sponsored by Dimitri. Perhaps we would have Dirnitri putting a drachma a metre on how far someone would run. No wonder we have a marathon of 26 miles 100-odd yards. It was probably decided on how much someone could make in profit.
That is what is being said tonight; it is not so much the playing fields as the paying fields of Eton that have been described to us. It is nonsense because a profit will not be made by managing our sports and recreation facilities and our swimming pools privately. The Government know that. I should like Conservative Members to name more than half a dozen football clubs that make a profit. Football clubs are run by patronage. We have the patronage of us, the community, who deliberately sponsor and pay for the facilities that we want. That is our choice and that is true of every major sports facility and


swimming pool. Private management does not produce a profit. It allows local authorities to put money in the pockets of others. That is what is happening.
The average subsidy—because that is what it is—to a swimming pool is £150,000-plus; for those attached to sports facilities it is over £200,000. In the so-called privatisation, the Minister proposes that we, the community, pay a sum of money to people to make a profit out of us using our sports facilities. It is nothing to do with them making the facility profitable. What they will do is make money for themselves. We should distinguish that clearly. It is not about involving people. In the 1980s we should be moving to user participation and community management, with people in the community, the users and the interest groups being involved in the management and direction of sports facilities.
The proposal is quite the opposite. It is that we hive off the sports facilities. The last resort of any management that has given up is privatisation. Those were the words of John Banham, now director general of the CBI, formerly director of the Audit Commission. He is right. It is about whether we give up running things democratically and efficiently on behalf of the community and handing them over to others to make money out of the needs of the community.
I have a particular interest in the debate because Sheffield is attempting to host the world student games in 1991. The same applies to Manchester's bid for the Olympic games. The Government have failed completely to give anything except lip service to assisting my city to host the games—an opportunity to put on a major international event to provide sports facilities of world class to ensure that people from this country do not have to go elsewhere for decent training facilities.
Far from being willing to give even one cent—I use the word "cent" deliberately rather than "penny" because we are moving entirely into the American era of sponsorship and making money out of sport—the Government are doing the opposite. Every measure announced by the Secretary of State since the games were awarded to Britain —in terms of restriction of capital, intervention to stop the partnership between the public and the private sector, and between a pluralistic approach and the interests of the community—has undermined the possibility of successfully staging those games. That is an indictment of a Government who preach that they are in favour of joint partnership between the private and the public sector, and that they are in favour of sport for all and in developing facilities, but who then take every step to make it impossible for a major local authority to stage the games.
If we are for sports development and for community involvement, we must debunk once and for all the accusation that Labour Members are living in the dark ages of the 1970s. I presume that what is meant by the dark ages are the times of genuine enthusiasm of men and women for the sport in which they are engaged. I refer also to the £40,000 or more that the Amateur Swimming Association itself contributes directly to facilities, and for the time that is given night after night, weekend after weekend, by people who care about what they are doing and who are themselves in partnership with the managers of sports facilities and swimming pools in making them a living community asset.
If that is what is meant by the dark ages, then presumably it was also the era before we suffered a 50 per cent. increase in crime, before the Heysel stadium disaster, and before there were the disgraceful scenes in West Germany. In trying to deal with what is happening outside football grounds by restricting access, we must recognise that it is a social malaise. It is a blight upon our country. It is a matter of fostering greed, self-interest, and thuggery —and then blaming others for an environment and a climate that has been created by the grab-all, money-all society that the Minister and his colleagues foster. That is what it is all about. It is about market forces and economic greed. It is about taking away social responsibility and community involvement and replacing it by the money box. That is what we are debating tonight. We are talking about trying to create— —

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: rose——

Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way only to those who have sat through this debate.
It seems to me that there is tonight a real divide, such as that described by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. On one side are those who are committed to a healthy and fit society in which recreation and sport are available and accessible to all, and affordable to every member of the community, so that we may be proud as a community of the way in which we foster that involvement in creating a world that young people feel belongs to them, that they can own, and in which they can take part.
That is the difference between us. It is the difference between rattling the money box, going for profit, and believing that privatisation is the god of all, or believing that we move forward as a society in giving people responsibility and a sense of involvement, and in creating a healthy world in which young people feel that they can play a part. The difference between us is shown by our belief in accessible, affordable facilities that are actually Ours.

Mr. Tom Pendry: This has been a fascinating debate, but is has been too short. I hope that the Minister with responsibility for sport will, when he winds up the debate, guarantee that he will fight for a full day's debate on the subject in Government time. Many of my hon. Friends wished to take part in the debate, but it became clear— —

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend note that several of my Welsh hon. Friends have been present for this debate, but the lack of time has prevented me, for instance, from making the stirring plea for help for Welsh sport that I wished to make? Will he note also that not one Welsh Conservative Back Bencher or one Welsh Office Minister has been present? Will he ask the Minister to take that into account as well?

Mr. Pendry: That is the only intervention that I shall allow, as the debate has been circumscribed as a result of interventions, but I want the Minister to realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) speaks for many Opposition Members.
As the debate has progressed—I hope that the Minister is listening, because I notice that he did not listen very carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell)—it has become


clear that Opposition Members are much more interested in sport, recreation and leisure for the mass of our people than are Conservative Members. The contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), and from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North East (Mr. Campbell), demonstrate that Opposition Members follow the lead given by my right hon. Friend in his powerful introduction of the motion. We represent the sportspeople of this country.
Once more, a motion to debate sport has come from the Opposition. The last time that the Government instituted such a debate was in 1980. Although the Minister was not in the House at the time, he was on our side of the argument about the boycott of the Moscow Olympic games. I well remember how he supported me at the 'English-Speaking Union when we opposed the Prime Minister's stand on the issue.
As my right hon. Friend said, we are not discussing a peripheral issue. Whether or not the Minister recognises it, he presides over an important and fast-growing activity, which generates some £4·5 billion of consumer expenditure. He must accept that he has a great responsibility. Of course sport is big business, but for many of us it is much more important that it means a truly healthy society. That is what separates the parties on the issue.
As has become abundantly clear, the Government increasingly feel that commercialism is much more important than our belief that sport relates to the needs and aspirations of the community. It is true that the Minister is a genuine sportsman, and that causes us some difficulty. Many of us gave him the kind of baptism that every Minister would like on coming into office. My right hon. Friend warned me, and I must plead guilty to being one of those who welcomed him, saying that, after a crop of pretty awful Conservative Sports Ministers, here was a man who, possibly, would "stand tall" for sport. We now find that he is following the same line as the rest and not living up to our expectations.
We had serious hopes for the Minister. We wanted him to do well for sport in the Government, the House and the community. We wanted him to elevate sport, but he has let us all down. His press conferences in West Germany during the European championship were nothing short of a disgrace. He merely heightened the tension. When he should have been combating the problems, he mystified the German authorities and UEFA officials.
It is not enough for the Minister to say, as I am sure he does privately, that he has a philistine, unsporty boss, and that he does not mean half of what comes from his office. The fact is that we expect him to stand up and fight his corner.
One of the most disgraceful parliamentary actions of recent years was the Minister's handling of the Green Paper on compulsory competitive tendering for management in local authority sports facilities. After promising me, in a parliamentary answer on 24 January, that he would place all the consultees' replies in the Library, he did so 158 days later, at 10.55 am on 1 July, five minutes before making his statement to the House. That was prised from him only when the Leader of the House insisted that he come to the Dispatch Box. He would have answered a planted question on that day on this important issue, as he did on the restructuring of the Sports Council, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath rightly condemned.
The Minister's explanations are as woefully inadequate as his proposals. His statement on competitive tendering clearly echoes his master's voice. It is ideology, dogma and prejudice winning over common sense and reason. When we were eventually able to read the consultees' replies, it became obvious that the Minister had not wanted us to read them. There is widespread and hostile opposition to the proposals, even in the watered down form in which they appeared.
I shall quote from the replies of one or two local authorities. One said:
The Council aims to encourage the use by young people, disadvantaged groups and those new to sport. The Council considers it to be important that these measures are not prejudiced by purely financial targets.
Another said:
I should express my reservations about the applicability of contract control over privately-operated sports and leisure facilities.
Those quotations come from local authorities that consider themselves to be radical. They show that the local authorities are diametrically opposed to Thatcherite plans. They are respectively from the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the London borough of Wandsworth.
The Audit Commission, not known for its Left-wing tendencies, also replied to the Minister. It said:
the benefits of cheap sports facilities may not simply accrue to the individuals using them directly. They may encourage a fitter, healthier and safer community, by teaching children to swim for example. Or they may, by encouraging 'at risk' groups off the streets, reduce vandalism and petty crime.
There were many other replies. The Bromley Gymnastic Association urged
the Secretary of State to leave the supply and control of sports facilities in the hands of the local authorities'".
One gentleman wrote:
As a Conservative voter, I feel there is a danger of shifting too far towards private control … Whilst there are strong arguments in favour of 'privatising' … I have serious doubts that the private sector will do this to the satisfaction of anyone but themselves and urge you 10 reconsider your position".

Mr. John Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Pendry: I shall not give way.
The borough of Lewisham, in the Minister's constituency, said:
The recent report on the inner city produced by Lord Scarman following the Brixton riots stressed the value to the community of good quality, accessible sports and leisure opportunities. The Green Paper is at odds with this view.
As my mother said when she came to see my national service passing-out parade, "Our Tom was the only one in step."
The Minister was new to the House when we debated capital punishment in 1983. He went out to the people in his constituency and asked how he should vote. They told him to vote for hanging and he did. If he believes in vox populi, vox dei, why does he not believe in listening to his constituents on an issue of this sort?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath raised the important issue of sport and recreation in schools. I agree with what he said. The Minister must recognise the importance of our youngsters who wish to participate in sport in schools. The closure of physical education training colleges at Madeley, Dartington, Anstey, Bingley and Nonington, and the closure of physical education courses at colleges such as St. John's in


York and a course at Dartford show that it is a problem when we consider the predicted bulge in numbers pssing through primary and middle schools.
As my right hon. Friend said, the Minister has to stand up and insist that 10 per cent. of the curriculum is devoted to sport. He should insist in a loud voice that the value of sport in schools should be recognised. It has been mentioned that the people whom we are applauding as heroes now did not come through the elitist system, but came through our school system. The Minister must answer that when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pendry: No. I wish to get on. I have already given way to an hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency to put it on record that there is need for a better and longer debate on this matter.
I shall direct the rest of my speech to an issue that is fundamental to the nation—the way in which our national game will go from here. It is clear that the Government, and especially the Minister, do not understand football. It is not just because the Minister supports Charlton Athletic, which is not a bad team. One of his biggest blunders is the proposed legislation to introduce a national membership scheme for our football clubs based on the Luton Town scheme. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) has a lot of power. If that scheme is to be emulated, we should examine it more closely.
When the scheme was introduced, we must remember that John Smith, the executive director of Luton Town, said that it was more to protect the away supporters from the Luton hooligan element. I do not believe that the chairman of Luton Town will disagree with that. As a result, Luton's thugs caused problems only when away from home. Since that time, Luton's average home league gate has fallen dramatically by about 27 per cent. to just 8,039.

Mr. David Evans: The number of home fans has gone up. The figure that the hon. Gentleman is quoting represents home fans. The away fans have not been in the ground.

Mr. Pendry: I checked the figures this morning with the Football League.

Mr. Moynihan: He is the chairman.

Mr. Pendry: The chairman is the author of the scheme, so of course he defends it. If the Minister keeps interrupting he will not have much time in which to wind up the debate, so he had better shut up. [Interruption.] I remind the House that we both boxed for Oxford, but I am a heavier guy.
The attendance figure that I have given is despite a successful season for Luton, with a cup win, three Wembley appearances, an FA cup semi-final and ninth place in the league. With that scheme in place, Luton should have the lowest police charges in the league, but instead they are halfway down the table.
Clearly, if the Luton scheme was imposed on football, many clubs would die.

Mr. David Evan: rose——

Mr. Pendry: Many clubs do not have the lucrative sponsorship contracts or long cup runs, so the sad truth is that the Government do not understand the problem.
Almost 18 million spectators watched football last season—more than almost all other popular sports put together. During the past three seasons 7,000 league and cup games have been played and there was trouble in 0·8 per cent. of them. In total, 0·03 per cent. of those attending games were in trouble. There were 2,500 games last season, and there was trouble in eight grounds. Those figures show the scale of the problem. They also place it in a European context.
The disgraceful scenes in West Germany could not be ignored by Governments. The thugs who caused havoc in Stuttgart, Dusseldorf and Frankfurt were by no means only English. Hardly any English supporters attended the final, yet there were 80 arrests. The all-party football committee asked the Minister to convene a meeting of Sports Ministers from UEFA countries to discuss common problems and find common solutions. Instead, there was the summit, which relates not to European football but to our home clubs.
I want to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to some of those points. Clearly, he has been sucked into the Luton scheme, but if he will not listen to the football authorities, why will he not listen to the centre for football research at Leicester university, which his Department commissioned to look into membership schemes? It found that there would be no merit in introducing such a scheme. The Minister has to answer that finding.
I cannot go into many of the issues that I wished to explore, because of the lack of time, but the Minister must build on what has been done since Heysel. There is a success story in football and he must build on it. The 50 per cent. membership scheme introduced only one year ago has two more years to go. It has been pretty successful. We must build on such proposals.
The Minister, himself a sportsman, should recognise, even if his Secretary of State does not, that through sport people can experience life at its best—its peaks and troughs, elation and despondency. Sport is a massive influence, so let us harness it to the benefit of society, to give the young opportunities in life rather than to turn them towards boredom and lawlessness. We must ensure that moral and social moves, not the cheque book, define the parameters of sport. The challenges facing sport are constantly evolving. It is not just about sponsorship and television, but about youth unemployment, early retirement, inner-city decay and many other factors.
The Labour party recognises sport in that social context. We therefore hope that those who agree with us on this issue will join us in the Lobby, because the Government and the Minister have no answers to the problems that we pose.

Mr. Moynihan: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
If a man hears only what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, then Opposition Members have pushed that truth to the limit. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) gave a list of areas in which the Government should interfere and then, at the end of his speech, said that we should stop Government involvement in sport. It is a bit rich for him to complain


about an open letter in which the Government rightly say that they wish to assess the relationship between the Government and the Sports Council. That relationship should be questioned.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) repeated the phrase "executive arm". That is a bit rich from a right hon. Member who, in 1965, when the Sports Council was established as an advisory body, was its chairman as the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science with responsibility for sport. He is critical of our assessing the relationship between the Sports Council and the Government and whether there should be executive power, and he is critical of our reviewing sports policy, but that is essential if we are to move away from the dark ages of the 1970s and develop a policy that is geared to serve the sportsmen and women of the 1990s.
I do not hesitate to face up to that challenge. We shall come back to the House and go to the country with a programme that is right for developing excellence and participation among the next generation of sportsmen and women.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) wanted a Government committed to a healthy and fit society and participation for all. We can do no better than examine the facts and what has happened in the past 10 years. There has been an increase of 6 million, from 17 million to 23 million, in the number of people who participate in sport. The average frequency of participation in sport in 1977 was once every three weeks. The hon. Gentleman should praise the fact that it is now once a fortnight and that more people from all groups are involved. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but that is fact and he does not like it. Let him look at the financing of sport in this country. Opposition Members should listen——

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many Welsh and Scottish Members are here this evening. The Minister who is now responding on behalf of the Government and who opened on their behalf—I applaud his hard work—has no responsibility for Wales or Scotland.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say; I remind him that it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Moynihan: Let all hon. Members look at the financial position of sport and recreation in this country. Every part has enjoyed a major increase in real terms—local authority spending, spending through the voluntary sectors of the Sports Aid Foundation and the Sports Aid Trust—and money going into the Sports Council. There has also been a substantial increase in sports sponsorship, which has risen from £60 million in 1980– 81, to £128 million in 1985–86, to £146 million in 1986–87, to £164 million—with a £40 million increase in sponsorship of sport in the past year. That is a record to be proud of. We are encouraging companies in Scotland, Wales and England to ensure that we obtain more sponsorship of sport to develop tomorrow's talent, to back today's, and to ensure that we increase participation——

Mr. Wilson: rose——

Mr. Moynihan: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) for raising the subject of disabled sport and the initiatives that have been taken in

the past 12 months. The other initiatives, as he rightly pointed out, were on drug abuse in sport and on the inner cities. I hope that we shall have all-party agreement that it is essential to shift public opinion—especially the press —away from considering the outstanding perform-ances of our top sports men and women who have disabilities in the news pages to considering them in the sports pages, in which they should be granted recognition as outstanding sportsmen and women.
This is why I have embarked in the past 12 months on the 10-events initiative and the full review of sport and recreation for those with disabilities. It is essential to raise the profile of disabled sport. The initiative includes £100,000 for the Paralympics in Seoul. I hope that all hon. Members will wish our able-bodied and disabled sportsmen and women at the consecutive Olympiads at Seoul this autumn every success ——

Mr. Wilson: Say something useful.

Mr. Moynihan: It is shameful that the hon. Gentleman should say that. It shows the importance that the Opposition attach to sport, and it is disgraceful and despicable.
I want to answer a number of important points about competitive tendering. The whole purpose of the competitive tendering regime is to yield better value for money from local authority expenditure, to seek more effective management of our facilities, to ensure that facilities are better marketed and to generate sensitivity to the needs of the community. Of course, the proposals recognise the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides about the continued use of facilities by disadvantaged groups and promising young sportsmen and women. That is why local authorities will retain their discretionary powers over pricing, opening hours and admission policies. They would, if they chose, use those powers in drawing up tender specifications and, if appropriate, continuing a level of subsidy.
With these powers remaining, the notion of facilities being taken over by profiteering private sector managers is a fallacy. Once the tender specification is drawn up, local authority employees will compete on equal terms with the private and voluntary sectors for the management contracts. That is why we are building on the success of the private sector management. of Cromwell squash and snooker club in Alton town council, of the Romford ice rink in Havering, of the Kingfisher leisure pool, and. the Hadleigh swimming pool in Babergh district council. There are many more examples, and when these measures are in place there will be more throughout the country.
I turn to the important issues of football in its positive context, and the problems of football hooliganism. It is essential that there is a twin-track policy and that we should address the problem outside and inside the grounds. Often, the two will require different measures and that is why we are considering how best to enforce restrictions on the sale of alcohol within the vicinity of football grounds. That is why we are reviewing exclusion orders, probation orders and attendance orders. That is why we are looking at stopping convicted football hooligans from attending matches here and abroad. We are not going to stop in committing ourselves absolutely to ensuring that we achieve a comprehensive package to fight football hooliganism here and abroad.

Question put,That the original words stands part of the Question:—

The House divided:Ayes 205, Noes 277

Division No. 408]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Galbraith, Sam


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Allen, Graham
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Alton, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Anderson, Donald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gordon, Mildred


Armstrong, Hilary
Gould, Bryan


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Graham, Thomas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barron, Kevin
Grocott, Bruce


Battle, John
Harman, Ms Harriet


Beckett, Margaret
Haynes, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Heffer, Eric S.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Henderson, Doug


Bermingham, Gerald
Hinchliffe, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Blunkett, David
Holland, Stuart


Boateng, Paul
Home Robertson, John


Boyes, Roland
Hood, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Janner, Greville


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
John, Brynmor


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lambie, David


Clay, Bob
Lamond, James


Clelland, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leighton, Ron


Coleman, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Cousins, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cox, Tom
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Cummings, John
McAllion, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Dr John
McCartney, Ian


Dalyell, Tam
Macdonald, Calum A.


Darling, Alistair
McFall, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKelvey, William


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
McTaggart, Bob


Doran, Frank
McWilliam, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marek, Dr John


Eadie, Alexander
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Martlew, Eric


Fatchett, Derek
Maxton, John


Fearn, Ronald
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michael, Alun


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fraser, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Fyfe, Maria
Morley, Elliott





Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mowlam, Marjorie
Short, Clare


Mullin, Chris
Skinner, Dennis


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Nellist, Dave
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


O'Brien, William
Snape, Peter


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Soley, Clive


Parry, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Patchett, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


Pike, Peter L.
Straw, Jack


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Prescott, John
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Wall, Pat


Radice, Giles
Wallace, James


Redmond, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wareing, Robert N.


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robertson, George
Wilson, Brian


Robinson, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


Rogers, Allan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rooker, Jeff
Worthington, Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wray, Jimmy


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Adam Ingram.


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Chris


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John


Allason, Rupert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amos, Alan
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Churchill, Mr


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bellingham, Henry
Cran, James


Benyon, W.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bevan, David Gilroy
Curry, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dicks, Terry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowis, John
Emery, Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Evennett, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fallon, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Farr, Sir John


Bright, Graham
Favell, Tony


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buck, Sir Antony
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Butcher, John
Fox, Sir Marcus






Franks, Cecil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Roger
Mates, Michael


French, Douglas
Maude, Hon Francis


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardiner, George
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miller, Sir Hal


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Moate, Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Gregory, Conal
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Moore, Rt Hon John


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mudd, David


Harris, David
Neale, Gerrard


Hawkins, Christopher
Needham, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hunter, Andrew
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Kilfedder, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Page, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Paice, James


Kirkhope, Timothy
Patnick, Irvine


Knapman, Roger
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Knowles, Michael
Pawsey, James


Knox, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Porter, David (Waveney)


Lang, Ian
Portillo, Michael


Latham, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Lawrence, Ivan
Price, Sir David


Lee, John (Pendle)
Raffan, Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Rathbone, Tim


Lightbown, David
Redwood, John


Lilley, Peter
Renton, Tim


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lord, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Maclean, David
Rost, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Rowe, Andrew


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Ryder, Richard


Madel, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Malins, Humfrey
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Mans, Keith
Sayeed, Jonathan


Marlow, Tony
Scott, Nicholas


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shaw, David (Dover)





Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Thorne, Neil


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Thornton, Malcolm


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thurnham, Peter


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Watts, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen


Steen, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stevens, Lewis
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question. That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as ameded, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's success in encouraging increased participation in sport and recreation and the opening of new facilities, stimulating private sector sponsorship and increasing grant-in-aid to the Sports Council by 37 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80, bringing forward proposals for competitive tendering to increase the efficient management of existing facilities, announcing proposals for restructuring the membership of the Sports Council to enable it to carry out its responsibilities more effectively, thus setting the scene for the structure and direction of sports policy for the 1990s, providing the police and the courts with comprehensive powers for tackling the problem of criminal hooliganism and in taking a firm lead in ensuring an integrated approach to vigorous law enforcement; and also welcomes the anti-hooligan measures announced following the Prime Minister's meeting on 6th July with the football authorities.

Television Licences

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move,
That the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 899), dated 18th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th May, be revoked.
I hope very much that at the end of the debate hon. Members on both sides of the House will join us in the Lobby.
We know from the former Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), that the Government wish that they could get rid of the concessionary television licence. In an intervention on 16 January 1987, the then Minister stated:
what I said"—
he made it clear that that was in a letter to a pensioner in Preston—
could not be reasonably defended was the 5p concession".
That is what the then Minister with responsibility for those matters said at the time, although he was gracious enough to add, for the sake of clarity:
and that as a matter of practical politics we could not get rid of it".—[Official Report, 16 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 508.]
That thought was echoed by the Home Secretary himself when he was answering questions earlier this year. So there we have it. The Government's real intention with the concession is that they wish that they could get rid of it, but they do not believe that they could get away with it.
When the Government were defeated in the court over the qualification for a concessionary licence, they had a choice. They could have done what the Prime Minister is constantly urging all of us to do, and said, "Right, we shall accept the rule of law and abide by the court's decision." The Government chose not to do that. Instead, they seek to change the law to match their view. They have added, as a sop, private nursing homes and in the process upped the cost of the concession from 5p to £5 for each person in the places where the concessionary television licence operates.
Presumably, the £5 will now be the base from which the cost of the concessionary licence will be raised from time to time. That must follow. Having made the first increase since 1969 when it was introduced, the Government have now decided that an increase is long overdue and that, having made one increase they might just as well from time to time go on to make others. That must follow, too, or perhaps the Minister will give us an undertaking now, or when he makes his speech on how long the cost will remain at £5.
Through the regulations, the Government are making matters worse, not only by such a hefty jump in the cost but by extending the anomaly. I say that because we are now left with a group of elderly people living in a warden-controlled complex who have the concession, while their friends and neighbours of exactly the same age and in a similar financial position, but living independently across the road or even next door, do not have it. I defy the Minister or any other hon. Member to explain that to elderly people so that they will see the justice of it. It makes no sense at all to discriminate in that arbitrary manner.

That is why Labour is pledged to phase out the television licence fee for all pensioner households. That is the pledge that I am pleased to repeat now.

Mr. John M. Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman is hostile to the anomaly, will he say whether he is in favour of a television licence fee or of abolishing it in favour of those of us who may not want to watch the BBC? Why should we pay for it?

Mr. Corbett: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not been following with his customary care what I am trying to say, but let us hope that what I shall now say will make it clear. The point that I am making is that millions of pensioners do not understand how, by the mere accident of an address at which they happen to live, either they get the concession or they do not, when on all the other factors they stand absolutely four square with those who get the concession.

Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of a licence fee?

Mr. Corbett: If the hon. Gentleman will stay with me, I will give him and the House the answer to that in a minute.
When the Government, on the back of the Kirkleess judgment, looked at this matter, that was the other choice that they had. They could have said that this was unfair across the whole range of pensioners and that they would take the opportunity to exempt all pensioners from payment of the television licence fee.
The right hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley, on 16 January 1987, at column 508 of Hansard, described the whole of the concession as "absurd" and argued against its extension. Indeed, he said that he regretted that it could not be abolished.
Instead of tinkering around, why have the Government not done the sensible thing and extended the concession to all pensioner households, or, better still, abolished the licence fee for all pensioners?

Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision was taken in the High Court on 23 January, exactly one week after my private Member's Bill —which would have done precisely what my hon. Friend has suggested—was defeated by 21 votes? Is it not interesting that that decision in the High Court was not appealed against by the Government, and that instead they are bringing in this new scheme?

Mr. Corbett: The whole House owes my hon. Friend a debt for the persistence with which he has pursued his efforts for the extension of free television licences to pensioners. The hallmark of this Government, and classically, of course, of the Secretary of State for the Environment, is that, when they are taken to court and lose, they do not abide by that decision; they come here, use their majority to move the goal posts, and change the law.
Just in case the Minister and the House think that this revolutionary notion of exempting pensioner households from paying the television licence fee is the sole child of the Labour party, I want to remind them that the Peacock report, two years ago, at paragraph 634, recommended a step towards this, when it said that pensioners drawing supplementary benefit—as it was then—in households wholly dependent upon a pension should be exempt from


the licence fee. To be fair, it went on to say that it did not accept the case for extending this to all pensioners. That did not meet Labour's aspirations, but it did recognise that 1·6 million pensioners living on means-tested benefits had special needs. I want to remind the House in particular what Peacock said would he the cost. It said that it would add about £5 at most to the cost of a licence for the rest of us.

Mr. Greg Knight: A few months ago the hon. Gentleman was urging that the licence fee should be abolished for all pensioners. Would that not cost something like £360 million a year, which is equivalent to a 50 per cent. increase for all those who still have to pay the licence fee, including those on low incomes?

Mr. Corbett: No, it would not. I am happy to say that the latest calculation is that it would cost £287 million—but do not let us fall out over the difference, whatever it is. There are other ways of doing that, If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I shall come to them. I anticipated all the questions that I was going to be asked.
The Government argue that abolishing the television licence fee for pensioners would give help to many who do not need it. Of course, in that sense so does the concessionary bus pass. The Prime Minister and her husband are entitled to bus passes, and I have heard no one say that they should not get them, like other pensioners, even though there are about 13 television sets in No. 10 Downing street for which no licence fee is paid.
The Government say that there is no way of knowing where the pensioner households are. That is tommy-rot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will quickly confirm. Perhaps the poll tax will at last unwittingly serve some sort of useful, though expensive, purpose by making it possible for the state to know exactly who lives where and how old they are.
This compassionate Government say that if they exempt pensioners, even pensioners who are on some form of means-tested benefit, what about other people on low incomes—the jobless, single parents, the sick and disabled and those on low pay? We know about the Government's concern for such people. The social security changes in April have made millions of them worse off. Again, the poll tax register would identify such people.
The Government argue that exempting pensioners would mean that taxes would have to go up. No such thing follows. I remind the House that Peacock said that exemptions for the 1·6 million pensioners then on means-tested benefits would add no more than £5 to the cost of the licence for the rest of us. Of course, we could claw back just a few of the thousands of millions of pounds handed to the already rich in this year's Budget and those that preceded it in the last nine years. The Government's arguments will not wash. They are indifferent to the real hardships faced by millions of pensioners, and, given the political will, the abolition of the licence fee is an extra and avoidable expense.
I beg the House to understand that for millions of pensioners television is a necessity and not the luxury or optional extra that it may be for some of us with more money. In most Opposition Members' constituencies there are hundreds of thousands of lonely, isolated pensioners living behind locked and chained front doors. To those people television is not simply a friend but often their only friend.
Of course I accept, as do we all, that regular contact within their communities is one answer to the loneliness of such people, but such contact is immensely difficult to achieve. Elderly people often resent well-intentioned neighbours popping in. They value their independence, although they often pay a high price for it. For millions of elderly people living alone and for elderly couples, television is a necessity. We know that most people rely mainly on television as a source of information about what is going on, and that is especially true of the elderly. It can help elderly people to play an active part in our democracy, and freedom from the licence fee can help in that process.
The television licence fee hits elderly people especially hard because, although it is good value, it represents a higher proportion of the income of pensioners than of the income of those of us who are at work, the principle seemingly being that the less one has the more one pays in percentage terms.
The Government's reluctance to help pensioners in this way is all the more difficult to understand amid all their boasts about eight years of sustained economic growth and the Prime Minister telling us that living standards are at their highest ever levels. They are for some, but not for millions of pensioners who have been left out of these riches. Why cannot the Government spare a few crumbs from the table for the elderly? What they have given away to the already rich in tax cuts would pay for exempting all pensioners from the TV licence fee seven times over. The value of those tax cuts is 78 times the cost of even the present restricted concessions.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I regard this as a matter of justice. Justice demands that pensioners have both the right and the means to live in decency and dignity. If the Government deny them that right again tonight, the Labour party will give it to them after the next election.

Mr. Roger Sims: I have a good deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Home Office, who is faced with a concessionary television licence scheme that he would not necessarily have wished to inherit. I do not believe that he wants to abolish it, but I suspect that he would have preferred it to be in a different form when it reached his hands.
As we know, the scheme applies to people in sheltered housing who are of retirement age or who are physically disabled or mentally disordered. At present it does not cover nursing homes and is confined to premises provided by local authorities or housing associations. It does not cover privately run sheltered accommodation, of which I suspect there was very little when the scheme was first devised.
Inevitably, the scheme has its anomalies. In particular, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, it does not cover pensioners who live in their own homes, although it seems to me quite impracticable and unreasonable to suggest that it should. After all, many pensioners living in their own homes are well-to-do and can easily afford the full charge for the televison licence. Many homes have several wage packets coming in and only one pensioner; how simple it would be to take the concessionary television licence out in the name of that one


pensioner. It would also be enormously expensive for ordinary licence holders if the concessionary scheme were extended to all pensioners.
The Government are right to extend the scheme to nursing homes and to suggest that the sum of 5p, which has remained unchanged for years while the licence fee has increased in line with inflation, should be fixed at the more realistic figure of £5. Nevertheless, the scheme is still confined to sheltered housing run by local authorities and housing associations. Many sheltered housing schemes are privately run, and there are a number in my constituency. It is now proposed to extend the scheme to private nursing homes but not to private sheltered accommodation.
The circumstances of people in privately run accommodation are often similar to those of people in local authority accommodation. Some of them are on social security, but they still do not get the concession. In some cases housing associations have taken over the management of private sheltered schemes and as I understand it, the residents of such homes will get the concessions, whereas those in homes remaining in private hands will not. Often it is pure chance that determines whether elderly people needing sheltered accommodation finish up in accommodation provided by local authorities, by housing associations or by private oganisations.
I have urged my hon. Friend the Minister of State in parliamentary questions and in correspondence to remedy the anomaly by extending the concessionary scheme to private accommodation. He has failed to do so and he has not justified his failure. In a letter dated 22 June he wrote:
the original intention of the scheme … was to benefit pensioners and disabled people living in residential homes, or in equivalent sheltered housing provided by a local authority or a housing association. We did consider whether it would be right to extend the scheme to private sheltered housing, but we concluded that this would not be justified..
I have to ask my hon. Friend: why not? The only grounds that I can think of would be those of cost, but this is already met in part at least by increasing the fee to £5, which will increase substantially the revenue from concessionary licences. If it did not cover the cost of extension to private schemes, I would take no exception to the fee being £6, which would still be a modest figure compared with the full charge for a licence. Although the regulations remedy one injustice, they perpetuate another. As it is not possible to amend a statutory instrument, I find myself unable to support the regulations as they stand.

Mr. David Winnick: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) will be joining us in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Sims: indicated dissent.

Mr. Winnick: He shakes his head. At least he will be abstaining, I hope.
The new regulations ensure that it will be much more difficult for pensioners to receive a concessionary licence, which is to cost £5 instead of 5p. Although I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, if all pensioners paid £5 we would have no quarrel.
The background to this deplorable decision by the Government was the High Court case which, as I said in

my intervention, was one week after my private Member's Bill was defeated by 21 votes. The High Court ruled that Kirklees council was right and the Home Office was wrong. Kirklees said that pensioners who were visited by a warden should be entitled to the concessionary licence fee. The High Court agreed, as long as the pensioners lived in accommodation designated for retired people. The Home Office did not appeal against the High Court decision. It is interesting to note that, in his judgment, Mr. Justice Taylor said:
The standpoint taken by the respondent"—
that was the Home Office—
is perverse and one which no reasonable Home Secretary could adopt.
Following that decision on 23 January last year, a number of local authorities, Labour-controlled in the main, which wished to assist pensioners in their areas, made applications on the same basis as the High Court had ruled. That is, the local authorities made application where there was a common facility. In the case of Kirklees, it was the visiting warden.
In my own borough it was the "piper" warning system, which is a first-class facility for pensioners. They press a button if they are in difficulty and the warning goes through to a department in the town hall. It is a common facility. So long as the pensioners are in accommodation designated for pensioners, it was accepted by the television licence office in Bristol that the applications should succeed. Therefore, the regulations have to be seen against the background of the Kirklees application being successful. The Government have responded disgracefully. The whole purpose of the new rules is to make it as difficult as possible for pensioners to qualify for the concession.
The week before the High Court decision, I introduced a private Member's Bill that would have exempted all pensioners from the payment of the licence fee. Why was that Bill defeated by 21 votes? The explanation is simple. The payroll vote came out in force. The Daily Star called the No Division list a list of dishonour. Among those voting against was the Secretary of State for Education, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister for Local Government, who is responsible for the poll tax, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister of State, Foreign Office, the Secretary of State for Social Services, his deputy for health matters, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who could himself virtually subsidise the pensioners' licence fee, voted against, as did the Government Chief Whip, the Leader of the House, the former chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), and the Secretary of State for Employment—all people earning substantial salaries and all——

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read names from a Division List relating to a vote which took place some time ago?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): This is a short debate and I have heard nothing out of order so far.

Mr. Winnick: I will not read further names from what was indeed a roll of dishonour. Those who voted against on that occasion were, as I said, earning substantial


salaries, over £40,000, from their Government jobs. They voted to deprive pensioners living on very limited incomes of concessionary television licences.

Mr. Roger King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: No.

Mr. King: rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down. [Interruption.]

Mr. Winnick: The more interruptions I have from Conservative Members, the less time they will have to speak.
I am in favour of the BBC having a licence fee, and I regard it as good value for money. Indeed, any alternative to the licence system—for example, subscription television—would be wrong and would make life more difficult for those on low incomes.
Television plays an important role in the lives of the elderly, particularly the very old, especially those with few relatives or close friends, and especially during the winter months. The Peacock report pointed out that many pensioners were dependent on television for information and entertainment. One third of pensioner households are on what is now income support, and many more are just above that level.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Would my hon. Friend agree that the least the Government should do would be to introduce concessionary licences for all pensioners, particularly in view of the fact that since 1979, when they ended the link between pensions and earnings, they have taken £1,249 from the single pensioner?

Mr. Winnick: That is right, and that was the purpose of my Bill, which was defeated by Government pressure and the payroll vote. In the main, pensioners deeply resent having to pay the full licence fee. While Conservative Members criticise us over this issue, many of their pensioner constituents, like ours, want the fee reduced because of their limited incomes, and they and we will continue to campaign until that happens.
The Peacock report recommended that pensioners on what is now income support, then supplementary benefit, should pay a concessionary fee. I said on Second Reading of my Bill that if the Government were not prepared to accept my argument, I would meet them halfway as a first step on the road to achieving justice for pensioners. But the Minister who replied—he is now at the Foreign Office—said that in no circumstances would the Government bend their view. Now they are making it far more difficult for pensioners to receive the concession.
The Government have argued—no doubt the point will be made again tonight—that the cost would be substantial, but this is a year that has seen massive tax cuts for the wealthiest in the community. Not only the hon. Member for Hove but many others will receive hundreds, in some cases thousands, of pounds more each week as a result. A third of pensioners rely on income support, and I am informed by the Library that around 64 per cent. are on small incomes and certainly substantially below average incomes. Why should they be denied what they have argued and campaigned for year after year? No Conservative Member will argue that the pensioner's bus pass is wrong and unjust and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Greg Knigh: rose——

Mr. Winnick: If the hon. Gentleman is one Conservative Member who believes that the bus pass is wrong, he can tell his constituents so.

Mr. Knight: rose——

Mr. Winnick: No, I will not give way.
If it is right for pensioners to receive the bus pass, why should they not receive the television licence fee concession? Why should they have to pay what we pay out of our incomes? That is both illogical and unjust.
I know that, because of the Government's majority, we shall lose the vote and these squalid, miserable regulations will be passed. Of that none of us has the shadow of a doubt. But anyone who believes that the issue will die a natural death is living in a fool's paradise. There are millions of pensioners in this country, and they are determined people: they fought for the bus pass. This shows my age, I suppose, but I well remember the campaigns which were directed at local authorities—I was a member of one—and against the Tory Government of the time, and which finally resulted in the introduction of the pass.
I have no doubt that pensioners will eventually get the concessionary television licence, but I know that it will not come from the present Government. A Government who have given massive increases to the rich in the Budget, and who are always willing to act for the most prosperous in the community, have introduced a measure that removes the opportunity for more pensioners to receive a concession. Everyone who votes against our prayer should be thoroughly ashamed. We have every justification for voting against the Government.

Mr. Roger King: After listening to the speech made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I feel—as, no doubt, will most of my colleagues—that Harold Wilson was more than generous when he once described him as the silliest man in the House. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the time and trouble to study his own rhetoric and his private Member's Bill, he would know that only 162 Labour Members bothered to turn up to support him that afternoon. Where were the rest?

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, nothing in the Library suggests that Harold Wilson was ever foolish enough to describe me in such an absurd fashion. That is a lie. No such remark was ever made about me. I want to put that right, because it has been mentioned before.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair. Mr. King.

Mr. King: rose——

Mr. Winnick: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said that I introduced a ten-minute Bill. I——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. Having resumed his place, he must allow other hon. Members to contribute to the debate. Mr. King.

Mr. King: The silliness of the——

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far amounts to a point of debate, not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order for the Chair, he must come to it immediately.

Mr. Winnick: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I introduced a ten-minute Bill on the date to which I referred. I ask that it be placed on the record that it was a private Member's Bill—I won a place in the Ballot—and not a ten-minute Bill. That is my point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. King.

Mr. King: I concede that it was a private Member's Bill. It was silly, however, to read out a list of Conservative Members who voted against the Bill, when only 162 Labour Members bothered to support it. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was not a supporter, nor was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). Where was the hon. Gentleman's support? The fact is that it was not present in this place. It was defeated by a small number on a Division.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) could not support the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was that he, the right hon. Gentleman, was a member of the Labour Government who took away the Christmas bonus for pensioners? He may have felt guilty about supporting the Bill when he had supported the removal of the bonus from pensioners.

Mr. King: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) will not be tempted to go down that road.

Mr. King: I do not intend to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) for reminding us of the lack of generosity on occasion of Labour Members when they are in government.
I understand that the regulations will increase the 5p television licence fee for those who are in warden-controlled accommodation. For some years many people have claimed that 5p was far too small a sum. They argued that the difference between the full licence fee and 5p was an enormous anomaly. I could not object to the 5p fee being increased to £5, but perhaps we should consider a two-tier system, which would mean that all old age pensioners in receipt of the basic state benefit would pay a reduced fee of £30, for example. That would be far more acceptable.
We are paying money to the BBC to bring us television and radio services, which are available in considerable quantity. The cost to the consumer is about 16p a day for two television channels, four national radio stations and many local radio stations. When we bear in mind that the cost of the average newspaper is about 25p, the television licence fee is a bargain. But is the idea of a television licence fee right and proper nowadays? I believe that there

is no need for such a licence. It is time that the BBC was placed on a more commercial footing. The elderly and everyone else should have the option to buy a television set that receives commercial channels only. If someone does not want the BBC services, he should be able to buy a television set that will receive the commercial channels only.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that in a short time satellite television broadcasting will make that option available to the consumer? It will mean that it will be possible to subscribe to individual channels. If pensioners prove that they are pensioners, the cost will be reduced for them. Is that not the future? If hon. Members ask how or why, I can suggest two British colonies which receive extremely good satellite broadcasts—the Turks and Caicos islands and Bermuda. If hon. Members want to learn about satellite broadcasting. they should go to those islands.

Mr. King: I shall do the debate a service by pointing out that fully commercial television operations enable consumers to choose whether to take those services. We definitely should encourage that.
Returning to the principle of a television licence, we should examine much more carefully how the BBC spends its money, because that is reflected in the cost of the licence.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: No. I wish to get on because other hon. Members wish to speak in this very short debate.
Millions of pounds are being gambled by the media on allocating television time for soccer coverage. I understand that many pensioners do not watch soccer on television, yet their licence money is helping to provide those services.

Mr. Grocott: rose——

Mr. King: We are told that if we were to introduce advertising to reduce the level of the licence fee on the BBC, the editorial content would be altered as a result of demands on the BBC to respond to the whims of the market place by down-marketing its programmes.

Mr. Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is advocating a subscription to the BBC, and that if pensioners want to watch the Cup final, the Grand national or Test match cricket, under his system they will have to pay for those services provided by the BBC? Will he confirm that that is his view and tell us how much he estimates they will have to pay?

Mr. King: I am not sure that I advocated that. I said that if pensioners wished to buy a television set that was adapted to receive only commercial television, and not the BBC, they could watch the programmes and not pay a licence fee. Those who wanted to watch BBC programmes would have to pay a licence fee, which we have at the moment and which we are discussing tonight. I believe that if we allowed sponsorship for sporting programmes on the BBC, the licence fee could be reduced dramatically, if not wiped out altogether.
We are told that there are not enough advertisers to use the BBC services. It is considered that if more commercial channels and more sponsorship were announced, there would be a dearth of advertisers. Of course that is not so.


Our commercial systems are extremely expensive to advertisers—the most expensive in Europe—because they have a monopoly within the United Kingdom. By encouraging more competition, particularly in sponsored programmes, we can reduce the cost of the licence fee. Why should soccer not be sponsored by Barclays bank, or motor racing by Shell?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a wide-ranging debate on what is likely to happen in future. Incidental references are in order, but the hon. Gentleman must direct his remarks to the merits of the new definition and the new fees payable.

Mr. King: The present policy of increasing the concessionary licence fee from 5p to £5 is a step in an unavoidable and necessary direction, and most people should welcome it as entirely realistic. However, we should look towards a better system which would enable all pensioners to benefit from a reduced licence fee, and eventually eliminate the greater part of it, if not all of it. I accept the regulations, but hopefully this will be one of the last occasions on which we have to debate them.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be very brief. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, in its 30th report, drew the attention of the House to the instrument. The House should be grateful to the Opposition for tabling a prayer against this negative procedure instrument. I remind the House that negative procedure instruments are never debated unless a prayer is tabled. They are brought before the House by agreement, and many prayers are entirely ignored. We have this opportunity because the Opposition have taken the trouble to bring the matter to the House.
The 30th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not been referred to so far. The Committee does not consider the merits of regulations. We are charged with considering ambiguities and drafting. The Committee says that the drafting appears defective because the definition of those who qualify for concessionary television licences are people who live in.
a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary".
Such people in sheltered accommodation include retired people of pensionable age. The question arises whether the exclusive definition in paragraph 7 applies to a warden's residence. The services of a warden are an important qualifying provision when obtaining concessionary licences.
It is important that delegated legislation is clear beyond peradventure, because it is subject to action in the courts. This is an area that has been subject to court action. It therefore seems right that the Committee should have drawn the House's attention to this ambiguity, which is best avoided in case the matter is subject to further challenge.
The Committee is obliged to give the Department an opportunity to provide an answer before it reports to the House. The Home Office replied in a memorandum that the warden's residence was included in the exclusive zone and that the regulations could not operate unless it was taken in that way.
The Committee believes that, when an order is made, it should be absolutely clear in writing, rather than by means

of implication—hence our report to the House. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance about that, so that it is on the record.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is making a useful contribution to the debate. I also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Am I right to assume that the regulations do not take account of the High Court judgment in favour of the Kirklees local authority? Am I right to think that the cheaper television licence for the elderly is not being extended to people in private retirement, residential warden-supervised accommodation, in accordance with the recommendation of the High Court in the Kirklees judgment? If so, it seems extraordinary for us to debate regulations which make concessions but do not extend them in accordance with the judgment of the High Court.

Mr. Cryer: The Committee was certainly not competent to comment on that, as that would involve considering the merits of the regulations. It appears, however, that the Minister has not met the requirements of the court.
It is poor of the Government not to meet clearly the court's comments in the Kirklees case and not to give pensioners who have spent years working for the country—many of them fought for it in the 1939–45 war—this concession. Many of them feel strongly about the matter. Many of us receive letters on the subject and meet pensioners who recognise the anomalies. The regulations are a little confusing, so some of the anomalies will continue. Pensioners feel that those anomalies are unjust. They would rather have a £5 licence fee for all pensioners as a stage towards free licences, which is what the Labour party believes is the correct answer.
Opposition Members can tonight vote positively in favour of the prayer to revoke the regulations, as a step in the right direction. We hope that the Conservatives will not act as organised scrooges and go into the Lobby to deny pensioners justice. They may do so, but we shall 'vote positively for the prayer to ensure that pensioners know that there is a party in the Chamber that is concerned for decency and justice.

Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) sought to equate his proposals with the idea of free bus passes and said that no hon. Member could oppose those. He wanted free bus passes for all. I must inform him that there is at least one hon. Member who will speak against them, for exactly the same reason that I shall speak against the principle of concessionary television licences for all.
There is no such thing as a free television licence—or a free bus pass. When the late but little lamented Greater London council in its infinite wisdom sought to give every Londoner a free bus pass, it was in effect laying a rate levy of £20 per pass on every Londoner. We know that many of those passes were issued to people who, because they were free, threw them into drawers and did not use them.
I represent a constituency in which 30 per cent. of the population are over retirement age. They range from people on state retirement pensions and supplementary benefit right up to some with private pensions and incomes who are very rich. I want the greatest possible help to be


given to those in maximum need, and the minimum unnecessary assitance to be given to those who patently do not need it.

Mr. Greg Knight: Do not the Government deserve credit for introducing, as from next year, the pay-as-you-go scheme, whereby those who cannot afford to take out a licence in one go will be able to obtain one on payment of the first instalment?

Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend touches on the crux of the argument and something that represents a major step forward. It will be of tremendous assistance to many of my constituents.
I see no point in giving unnecessary aid that is supposedly free. It is not free: it will be a charge on others. The hon. Member for Walsall, North said—when he reads Hansard he may regret this—that if every pensioner paid £5 Labour Members would have no quarrel with the Government. That was slightly at variance with what his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said—that a Labour Government, if ever elected, would phase out the TV licence fee for all pensioner households. So a pensioner living in Cliftonville with a Rolls-Royce or Jaguar parked in the drive and a large house would get an unnecessary free licence while a disabled single parent would still pay the full fee. That is arrant nonsense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) drew attention to the crux of part of this argument—the anomalies that existed in the past. Thanet district council has tried to unravel the regulations over the years and has made a pig's ear of the job. The net result has been blocks of flats in Thanet in which pensioners living on the ground and first floors get concessionary licences—at 5p, they are effectively free—but pensioners on the second floor, which is deemed, because there is no lift, to be unsuitable for pensioners, do not—in spite of their being roughly the same age and on the same incomes, although perhaps more agile. That is wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst went on to draw a correct comparison between those who happen to live in housing associaton sheltered housing or public sector sheltered housing, and those living in private sector housing—for example, the developments built by McCarthy and Stone Developments. The disposable income—that is what really counts—of those living in both kinds of accommodation is probably similar, but one group gets concessionary licences, and the other group does not.
Through these regulations my hon. Friend the Minister has sought to begin—I trust that this is an interim measure—to unravel some of the anomalies. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) correctly drew attention to the pay-as-you-go scheme. I am certain that my constituents will welcome and take advantage of the scheme, because the lump sum that they have had to pay previously will now be payable in smaller doses, and therefore will be more affordable.
All this begs the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) raised. In its unanimous report, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended the retention of the licence fee, and for one simple reason. Although there is the technology to

provide an alternative, it is not yet in place. For some time some of us have been advocating the installation of Peritelevision sockets in sets that would enable fee collection by subscription, but a system for that is not yet in place, so the Select Committee recommended, correctly and unanimously, that for the forseeable future, the licence fee should be maintained.
The Select Committee went on to recommend, as a matter of urgency, that, by 1990, every set sold should have a Peritelevision socket. That will lead, I hope. inevitably and inexorably, to the abolition of the licence fee in toto, so that all television is paid for by advertising or subscription. Conservative Members look forward to the day when all pensioners are not given concessionary bus passes or licences, or anything else.

Ms. Mowlam: They should have a decent pension.

Mr. Gale: The Conservative party is working towards the adequate pension provision that the Labour party failed to provide when it was in power. We believe that the elderly should be given the right to choose what they pay for, whether it be private or public transport, television, concert tickets or anything else. The way forward will be, ultimately, the abolition of the licence fee in its entirety and the payment by those who view for what they choose to view.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is correct to say that there is no such thing as a free bus pass or a free television licence. Both these concessions have to be paid for. However, the Opposition are prepared to pay for these concessions, while the Government are not.
This is not so much a broadcasting issue as a social one. It is universally recognised that for the elderly and the disabled, television, metaphorically and in some cases literally, is a lifeline. That is particularly so for those who live alone and want to be independent, and those who, in that often repeated and somewhat pathetic phrase, do not wish to be a burden. Those who want to preserve their privacy and dignity and to remain integrated in the community are, paradoxically, the people who get no benefit from these regulations.
I welcome the fact that some additional institutions will qualify, but the definition that the regulations embrace of individual homes is most curious, because it endeavours to make individual homes assume the character of an institution. They must have a common and exclusive boundary, a resident or full-time warden and something archly described as a communal facility. The present arrangements occasion great aggravation. I suspect that sometimes the postbags of all hon. Members contain letters from constituents complaining of the anomaly that exists. They do not appreciate the fact that they do not qualify, while people elsewhere in exactly the same position do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) told me of three tower blocks in his constituency, one of which qualifies, but the other two of which do not. All three contain pensioners who, for all practical purposes, reside in the same circumstances, and who find it amazing and aggravating that some qualify and some do not.
The increase in the concessionary licence fee from 5p to £5 provides the opportunity to extend the concession to all old-age pensioners, because previously the costs of collection far exceeded the revenue that the concessionary licence generated. The concessionary sum of £5 allows for economic collection and is probably within the scope of most pensioners to pay. A simple solution would be to put the concessionary television licence on the same footing as a bus pass. which has already been referred to as something that has enjoyed unqualified success.
I have said already that this is a social issue, not a broadcasting one, and the inevitable consequence is that the shortfall in revenue should he met, not by the BBC, but by general taxation. I am happy to advocate that, and I suspect that outside the House there would be considerable support for that view.
Like many hon. Members, I wish that it was not necessary to have concessions for pensioners. If the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is correct in saying that the Government are moving to a day when that will not be necessary, he will receive applause from me and other hon. Members when that occurs. However, I beg leave to display some cynicism about how soon the millennium for pensioners will arrive.
The concession that has been allowed in the past has become selective and discriminatory. It would be right and proper to make it universal, and there is hardly a person in the country who would not applaud the Government if they were to do so.

Mr. Allen McKay: The question of the concessionary television licence has been with us for a long time, because my predecessor, John Mendelson, raised it in 1976, 1977 and 1978, and I carried it on in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and each year since, and I will continue to do so. As for voting, I remind the House that on one marvellous occasion on a ten-minute Bill, one of my colleagues decided that I had not gone far enough. He said that I was putting my toe in the water to test the temperature, but he would prefer to go in a little further. He divided the House and there were 197 votes for and none against, which meant that no Conservative Member had the courage to go with us or to go against us.
Those hon. Members did not go against us purely because of the voting patterns. They knew that they would infuriate millions of old-age pensioners by voting against. They decided not to take their courage in their hands, but to sit on their seats. I remember the Whips running round keeping them in their seats. If we are talking about voting, 197 to nil is worth mentioning.
I would like old-age pensions to be so high that pensioners had no need for concessionary television licences or travel warrants. But we should be fooling ourselves if we thought that that could be achieved in the near future. It will not. We have been talking about adequate pensions for some time. The link between earnings and pensions was cut, thus reducing considerably the value of pensions. We have not given people a large enough pension to make such concessions unnecessary.
Some hon. Members said that people buy newspapers, some of which cost 30p, and that television costs only 16p a day. But many pensioners in my constituency do not buy newspapers, because most of them must save every penny. I cite the example of my mother in that respect—I buy

newspapers for her since she said that she could not afford them. I do not know what world Conservative Members live in, but pensioners in my constituency use the reading rooms of local libraries if they want to read the newspapers.
Television is a source of company for some pensioners. I again cite my mother as an example. I telephone her every night—she will not go to bed until she knows that I am all right—and the first thing that she says is, "Wait until I turn off the television. I have had it on for company." There are thousands like her. Pensioners with Rolls-Royces are few and far between. By far the majority of pensioners in my constituency have never seen a Rolls-Royce.
Let us talk about the real world and about what the regulations will mean. Why did the Government decide to limit their provisions to
a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary"?
Why four? Why not two, three, five or six? Where has that figure been plucked from? On what basis are we legislating for groups of four dwellings? What is a "common and exclusive boundary"? How far can it extend? At present, the concessionary licence is granted to a local authority house that has communal facilities and a warden. There are resident wardens, walking wardens where there are no communal facilities and walking wardens where there are communal facilities. The dwellings are in goups of twos, threes and fours, sometimes stretched out over a large area.
What is the Minister after? He does not want the High Court ruling to be implemented. He is wary about granting an extension that could be considered unfair, so he is trying to stabilise the position. The Minister is creating a launching pad for the future. The BBC has calculated that the cost of the licence must increase each year by 2 per cent. above the retail price index. The £5 fee will not remain for long. Will the Minister say definitely whether this is the be-all and end-all, or are the regulations a launching pad for fees of £6, £7, £8 or £9? The Government have decided to remove the anomaly in their usual way—not by increasing the number of people who can obtain the 5p concessionary licence, but by increasing the fee to £5. They can say that there is no longer an anomaly because everyone must pay the same.
When considering the cost of the concessionary licence, we should remember the Conservative Budgets of the past few years and all the money that the Government have given away to people who do not need it much. Using the basic rate of income tax as a guide, we know that it would cost only 0·2p for every pensioner household to have a concessionary licence. Using VAT, it would cost 0·24p for every pensioner household to have a concessionary licence. The House could decide on a combination of VAT, tax and an increased licence fee, provided everyone got the £5 concession.
With each Budget, the Government have willingly given away money and have forgotten the old-age pensioner's television licence. This is the biggest anomaly for years. It is time that we did away with it. This system is archaic and an insult to the 4·9 million pensioners in private and public dwellings who do not enjoy the concessionary licence fee.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Durham city council has about 4,000 pensioners linked to its pioneering sheltered accommodation scheme, and for the past 13 years many have qualified for the concessionary 5p licence scheme. For almost the past two years, because further applications were made as more pensioners joined the council's innovative scheme, the National Television Licence Records Office has not granted any concessionary television licences. The delay and uncertainty have caused anguish and confusion to many of my elderly constitutents who have been harassed and threatened by the licence office.
Some bungalows and flats qualify automatically, but 3,000 tenants were left without cover while the dispute about what constituted a group dwelling rumbled on. Many old folk received warning letters about holding valid licences and some were visited by licence investigators. There is the example of an 80-year-old widow who was petrified about being sent to prison because of the threatening letter that she had received from the licence office. It brought on an angina attack. That innocent old lady was caught in a trap brought about by the Government's callousness and deviousness. I can quote dozens of such cases.
The local authority was blamed for the Government's incompetence. Many old people could not sleep because of the worry about having to find £60, for which they had not budgeted. Some paid for the licence when they were entitled to it for 5p. The old people of Durham were caught in limbo, not knowing whether they were covered by a licence or were facing prosecution. Despite frequent attempts by me and the city council to get a positive response from the National Television Licence Records Office and the Minister, the council's efforts went unanswered, apart from the council being told that the office was awaiting advice from the Home Office.
Why were those people who had received concessionary television licences in accordance with the criteria laid down by the 1984 legislation and those pensioners who had joined the scheme later and qualified for the concession now unable to get it? Those pensioners included those living in sheltered housing; those with the services of a resident warden, good neighbour warden or mobile warden living in flats, houses or bungalows; and all those who had the city care alarm system fitted—the Home Office had previously accepted it as a modification to a property when occupied by a person of pensionable age—togther with other associated facilities, such as the services of a warden, the presence of a luncheon club and meals-on-wheels service and any other welfare facilities.
The Government did that because they were proposing a change in the concessionary licence scheme which they were not prepared to divulge to those asking the questions. The Government were proposing to inhibit the regulations and prevent many old people from getting a concessionary licence. It is now clear that the new criteria apply only to purpose-built accommodation for the elderly in groups of not less than four dwellings with one continuous boundary and shared facilities, such as a communal hall and a resident warden who shall spend at least 30 hours a week devoted to that scheme. The criteria do not apply to mainstream housing.
Many new applicants in Durham who would have qualified under the old regulations will not under the new

regulations. Apart from being extremely uncaring and spiteful, they will cause anomalies and distress to many old people in my constituency, and, I assume, to many old people in many other constituencies throughout the country. There will be neighbouring dwellings where one person will receive the concession and the other will not, yet they will be living in the same conditions, where one received it previously under the old regulations and will keep it, yet another in exactly the same type of property and conditions will now not receive it.
Purpose-built accommodation is virtually no longer being constructed because of the Government's massive cuts in housing capital. Local authorities are looking at other ways of caring for their old and elderly population. As I said, central control care schemes can give protection to thousands of pensioners in both the public and private sectors. For the cost of, say, two sheltered schemes, which would cover only a handful of old people, one can now cover thousands of people with a controlled city care system such as Durham has.
Surely it would not have been too much to expect the Government to allow all in those schemes a concessionary television licence. Ideally, I should like to see a free television licence for all pensioners, regardless of where they live, their incomes and their circumstances, and regardless of the cost. We have heard about that. That is the least that we can do for our elderly citizens who have served this country through two world wars and been prepared to give their lives for it. I am certain that the next Labour Government will be committed to doing that. I shall fully support them, as my comrades will.
To cut the number who will get the concession—[Interruption.] I have sat in the Chamber for about five hours today, and I intend to have my say regardless of the interruptions from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) whom I hardly ever see in the House [Interruption.] I am talking no more drivel than the rubbish that I have heard from Conservative Members in the debate.
To cut the number who will get the concession and to raise the concession fee from 5p to £5 is, to say the least, mean and uncaring, but that is exactly what I have come to expect from that lot on the Conservative Benches.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): In this short debate I found the hypocritical indignation of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), to mention but two Opposition Members, extraordinary. What are we doing tonight? We are extending the concession for all those who have had it before. We are extending it for the first time to those in residential nursing homes, and we are bringing in restrictions on further extensions. All that is at the cost of increasing the fee from 5p to £5 a week—[HoN. MEMBERS: "A week?] A year. Let me remind the House that the 5p has not changed since the scheme was introduced in 1969. In that time the colour licence fee has gone up by over £50, and the single pension by nearly £37 a week. The increase in the concessionary fee is less than £5 a year, a mere 1½fp a day, which is less than one hundredth of the increase in the single pension that we introduced in the Budget.
Listening to Opposition Members, one would think that we were increasing the licence fee by perhaps 50 per


cent.—by £31—yet that would be the precise effect if we followed what the hon. Member for Walsall, North has suggested. If we were to introduce free licences for every pensioner it would, as my hon. Friend for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) said, mean an extra £360 million a year. If that had to be found from every other television licence holder, as it should be, it would mean an increase of 50 per cent. That is the Peacock point that the hon. Member for Erdington misquoted—that if anyone needed a concession on his television licence it was those on what used to be called supplementary benefit, now income support. It is precisely some of those who would have to pay the extra £31 a year, this extra 50 per cent., if we were to follow the Opposition's suggestions.
In the short time available I should like to recount the brief history of the scheme and what we are doing as a result of the Kirklees judgment. The licence scheme has existed in more or less the same form for nearly 20 years. The aim and scope of the scheme have been accepted by every Government, whatever their political persuasion, since 1969. A few improvements have been made over the years, the most notable being the extension of the scheme to disabled people in 1984. Typically, that was done by a Conservative Government, just as we have now extended it to nursing homes.
The underlying intention of the scheme, which was to benefit pensioners and, latterly, disabled people living in residential homes or in sheltered housing run by a local authority or housing association, remained unchanged for many years. The High Court judgment in the case brought by Kirklees metropolitan council changed all that. One of the three tests under the old rules was whether accommodation provided a common facility for the use of all residents. The Kirklees judgment widened that part of the definition to include housing stewards with some responsibilities for the care of residents.
In the light of the Kirklees judgment, it was also clear that the scope for the other two tests—that the housing formed part of a group and was specially provided for retirement pensioners and disabled people—had become wider than originally intended. That undermined the long-standing principle accepted by Governments of both parties and opened the way for the extension of the scheme to many people in mainstream housing. Such people were never intended by the Labour Government or, it must be said, by this Government, to benefit from the scheme.
I listened with great interest to my hon. Friends who suggested that the days of the BBC television licence might be coming to an end. We are not yet at that point.

Mr. Grocott: rose——

Mr. Renton: No, I shall not give way, because I have only a few minutes left in which to reply and I want to deal with a point raised about the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
If we had not acted, the finances of the BBC would have been under great pressure and we would have had to increase the television licence fee by up to 50 per cent. for everyone else, including many people who are less well able to afford it than pensioners. The whole basis of the concessionary scheme would have broken down, giving rise to indefensible anomalies.
I should now like to deal with the important matter raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I assure him that we carefully considered the point

raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I think he will accept that it goes to the drafting rather than to the substance. In our reply to the Committee we tried to make clear our firm view that there is no internal inconsistency in the regulations. They require a sheltered housing scheme to have art exclusive boundary and a resident warden. The scheme must contain no dwellings other than those meeting the requirements of the regulations and that of the resident warden. In practice, that is the interpretation that we are placing on the regulations. We have had no complaints on this score and we do not expect any.
I should like to deal with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chiselhurst (Mr. Sims). In his moderate and friendly speech he dealt with a matter about which he is greatly concerned—the right to extend the scheme to privately run or sheltered housing schemes. As I have said before, that would not be justified, because this is an attractive and fast-growing sector of the owner-occupier market. We recognise that many private sheltered schemes display characteristics that are similar to those in schemes run by local authorities or housing associations. To include privately run or sheltered housing schemes would once again lead to an extension of the scheme far beyond its original intention. The regulations aim to get back to the original intention.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Renton: No. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I must deal with questions asked by other hon. Members.

Mr. Winterton: It was a very inadequate answer.

Mr. Renton: I always appreciate my hon. Friend's robust comments.
I listened with great interest to the challenging speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who said that, with the growth of satellite channels and the greater choice that that will bring, there may be no television licence fee. The logic of having no television licence fee is that no one will pay for the use of a standard television set, and that would apply to pensioners as well as everyone else.
One might have thought that the Labour party would have welcomed that proposition when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched on it in a speech the other day. Instead, they sucked their teeth in horror. That is typical of their lack of logic. They appear to believe in having free television licences for pensioners, but much more expensive licences for everyone else, including some of those on income support.
The hon. Member for Erdington returned to a well-known bribe—the fantasy promise of the Labour party that it will provide free television licences for all pensioners. If that point had been made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who was originally booked to open the debate, I might have understood it. It would have been an election bribe. We all understand that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is fighting an election at the moment. Doubtless his good comrade the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) would have gone around hatching a scheme to give not only free television, but free video recorders and lots of other freebies to every Labour dowager on the books. It is a nonsensical scheme.
It is not serious policy. It is a mere gesture. It is a substitute for reflective thought and practical action, and in his heart the hon. Member for Erdington knows that full well.
The Government of whom I am proud to be a member, on the other hand, have maintained the value of the state retirement pension, presided over a record growth in pensioners' incomes, protected pensioners' savings, and seen pensioners' total income rise by 18 per cent. in the years between 1979 and 1985—twice the increase for the population as a whole, and four times the increase under the Labour Government.
The Government's record on pensions is far better than anything that the hon. Member for Erdington and his colleagues can offer. The support that pensioners gave us in the general election and in every opinion poll since then shows that the pensioners know that we are a Government whom they can trust to deliver the goods for them. Neither they nor we——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to the Order of 11 July.

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 195.

Division No. 409]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Eadie, Alexander


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Allen, Graham
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Alton, David
Fatchett, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Armstrong, Hilary
Flannery, Martin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flynn, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Battle, John
Foster, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galbraith, Sam


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bermingham, Gerald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blunkett, David
Gordon, Mildred


Boateng, Paul
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradley, Keith
Grocott, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Holland, Stuart


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Home Robertson, John


Buckley, George J.
Hood, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Illsley, Eric


Clay, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lambie, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lamond, James


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cummings, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Dr John
McAllion, John


Dalyell, Tam
McAvoy, Thomas


Darling, Alistair
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
McLeish, Henry


Doran, Frank
McTaggart, Bob


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McWilliam, John





Madden, Max
Rogers, Allan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Rooker, Jeff


Marek, Dr John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Rowlands, Ted


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ruddock, Joan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sheerman, Barry


Martlew, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Short, Clare


Meale, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Snape, Peter


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri
Strang, Gavin


Morley, Elliott
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Wall, Pat


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


Nellist, Dave
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wareing, Robert N.


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Parry, Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pike, Peter L.
Wilson, Brian


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Primarolo, Dawn
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Reid, Dr John



Richardson, Jo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Robertson, George





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Amos, Alan
Emery, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Farr, Sir John


Ashby, David
Favell, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Franks, Cecil


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Freeman, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Gregory, Conal


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Browne, John (Winchester)
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hawkins, Christopher


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Butcher, John
Jessel, Toby


Butler, Chris
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Butterfill, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carttiss, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cash, William
Knowles, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Knox, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Conway, Derek
Lee, John (Pendle)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cran, James
Lightbown, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lilley, Peter


Curry, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)






Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maclean, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mills, Iain
Stokes, Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Sumberg, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Summerson, Hugo


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neale, Gerrard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Needham, Richard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, Neil


Neubert, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trippier, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Oppenheim, Phillip
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Paice, James
Walden, George


Patnick, Irvine
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Portillo, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Price, Sir David
Wells, Bowen


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Renton, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhodes James, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Riddick, Graham
Wood, Timothy


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Woodcock, Mike


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rowe, Andrew



Ryder, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Sackville, Hon Tom
Mr. Alan Howarth and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Sayeed, Jonathan

Question accordingly negatived.

Chlorofluorocarbons and the Ozone Layer

[Relevant Document: First Report of the Environment Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 270 of Session 1987–88) on Air Pollution.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for theEnvironment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8335/87 and 4997/88 + COR1 on control of chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer; supports the implementation of the Montreal Protocol through Community-wide action; endorses the control of consumption of ozone-depleting substances through control of their overall supply; and encourages continuing action by all sectors of industry on a voluntary basis to reduce use of these substances to the maximum possible extent.
Document No. 8335/87 is a proposal for a decision seeking the Council's authorisation of Community signature of a protocol to the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer. The proposal was submitted on 11 September 1987, at a time when international negotiations were reaching their conclusion. The Council's authorisation was given by means of urgent written procedure in time for the conference of plenipotentiaries held in Montreal from 14 to 16 September. On 16 September, what is now called the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer was signed by the Community, the United Kingdom and most other member states.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained on 13 January in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), the House was in recess at that time and it was not possible for the normal scrutiny procedures to be carried out. The Government, however, kept the House informed of developments, including the outcome of the diplomatic conference. The text of the protocol was published as a Command Paper and laid before both Houses in January, in accordance with the usual practice, before ratification by the United Kingdom.
The protocol contains measures to control the production and consumption of two groups of chemicals with the potential to damage the ozone layer: chlorofluorocarbons—CFCs—11, 12, 113, 114 and 115, and halons 1211, 1301 and 2402.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The purpose of halons for manufacturing industry is connected mostly with fire retardants. This involves major policy. There is obviously great advantage in using halons, as any chemist knows. Could the Minister explain—either in the winding-up speech or at his convenience—the Government's policy towards the non-use of halons, given that it will make fire retardant materials far more difficult, and certainly far more expensive, to manufacture?

Mr. Moynihan: I shall certainly elaborate the point during my winding-up speech. However, I shall take this opportunity to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is absolutely right: halons a re widely used in fire extinguishers, and we need to promote active research into alternative substances that have the same effect without depleting the ozone layer. That will require time. One of the problems is the substitution of halons in fire extinguishers, particularly in developing countries. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that is expensive.
CFCs are used for such purposes as refrigeration, foam-blowing and aerosol propellants. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has said. halons are used primarily as fire retardants. The protocol provides for production and consumption of CFCs to be reduced progressively to 50 per cent. of 1986 levels by 1999. Production and consumption of halons is to be frozen by 1993. There is some flexibility to exceed the production limits, but solely for the purposes of industrial rationalisation and to guarantee supplies to low-consuming developing country parties. Such countries have more time to comply with the measures. Unlike the provisions limiting trade with non-parties, the special provisions for developing countries are designed to encourage countries to join the protocol.
We are keen that there should be the widest possible participation in the protocol, and we are doing what we can, through diplomatic and industrial channels, to encourage as many developing countries as possible to sign the protocol.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that many people will be disappointed by the approach that has been taken tonight? Will he assure the House that the Government will give speedy consideration to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, which deals with CFCs, and that the Government's response will be published as soon as possible? At that stage there should be a further debate. Perhaps the response to the section of the report on CFCs should be speedier than the response to other parts.

Mr. Moynihan: The Government have considered the Select Committee's recommendations seriously and will take on board the importance that the hon. Gentleman has attached to them. We are taking a tough line on production, as we did with the Americans during the negotiations. We have been —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) laughs, but that is a fact. We have been pushing extremely hard for a comprehensive ban on CFCs rather than a selective one. We are aware that CFCs, wherever they come from, have a depleting effect on the ozone layer. As the Select Committee urges, we must tackle the overall problem.

Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle): Is the Minister denying that the Americans wanted a greater cut in production than that for which the EEC was arguing, and that within the EEC Britain was one of the countries arguing for a smaller cut than that proposed by the Community?

Mr. Moynihan: I am denying that. I am saying categorically that we are looking for a greater cut in production during the negotiations. We were urging the Americans to move from specific bans to an overall ban for the reason that I have outlined. It is important internationally to ensure that we control CFCs, reduce them and take into account any new technology that makes it possible to take further measures. An important part of the protocol is the opportunity to review in the light of new scientific developments and technology.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister clarify the passage on the second page of the memorandum, which, referring to article 7, states:

There are also measures limiting imports from countries not party to the protocol."?
Is it not a fact that it will be difficult administratively to do that? I am told that it will be extremely difficult.

Mr. Moynihan: It will be difficult, but not impossible. It is our intention to put in place appropriate measures to ensure that the objective is achieved. I shall deal with them later.
We are keen that there should be the widest possible participation in the protocol. For example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his forthcoming visit to China, will seek to persuade the Chinese to adopt the protocol. If he succeeds in doing so, that will bring 1 billion people within it, many of whom are important users of CFCs and halons. If we can ensure that China is persuaded during my right hon. Friend's visit, that will be an important move forward. Incidentally, today he persuaded the Swedish Minister who is responsible for these matters to take this line.
The protocol expressly provides for the control measures to be reviewed in 1990, and at least every four years thereafter in the light of available scientific, environmental, technical and economic information. Since Montreal, our understanding of the science has continued to develop. The Department's stratospheric ozone review group—an independent advisory body of experts—has been keeping a close watch on the situation. At the Department's request, the group agreed to the release on 14 June of the executive summary, of its forthcoming second report. In the summary the group says that it is now virtually certain that the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic is caused by CFCs, which are also implicated in ozone depletion above other parts of the globe, including the United Kingdom. The group gives a clear warning that unless emissions are greatly reduced, and possibly phased out, more severe depletion of statospheric ozone is likely to occur.
The Government will be studying the report carefully as soon as it is available, but we are already taking careful note of the summary and its warning about the need to strengthen the protocol. Our first priority, however, shared with our partners in the European Community, is to ensure that the protocol enters into force on 1 January 1989, as planned, and with the widest possible participation. This will allow the protocol's own review procedures to be put into effect.
That brings me to document No. 4997/88, which comprises two proposals. These are a decision on ratification of the Vienna convention and the Montreal protocol by the European Community and member states, and a regulation laying down common rules for implementing the protocol within the Community. The document COR1 merely makes some minor drafting changes to the proposals in document No. 4997/88.
As the House will be aware, on 16 June, the Environment Council reached agreement in principle on the proposals, subject to parliamentary reserves from the United Kingdom and several other member states. The United Kingdom parliamentary reserve was entered because it had not been possible to arrange before then a debate called for in the reports of the Select Committee on documents 8335/87 and 4997/88 and because the scrutiny process in another place had not yet been completed. When both Houses are satisfied, the United Kingdom will be able to lift its reserve on the proposals.
The United Kingdom ratified the decisions at the Vienna convention as long ago as 1987, and it was the first European country to do so. France is the only other member state to have ratified. All other member states have now signed the protocol, except Ireland and Spain. The proposed decision originally sought to achieve simultaneous ratification of both instruments by 15 September 1988. In discussion, the deadline has been extended to 1 October for the convention and 31 December for the protocol.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. Friend has mentioned the pressure that we put on the Americans to reach agreement with us. Has he been able to put any pressure on the Russians to abide by the terms of the protocol?

Mr. Moynihan: It is not a matter of applying pressure, but there is joint recognition with the Soviet Union of the importance of ensuring that the protocol is properly implemented. I shall come to those countries which have signed since Montreal, not least the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister confirm or deny that the British Government argued in the Common Market that there should be 90 per cent. ratification of the protocol before it was implemented, and that that gave the Soviet Union a veto?

Mr. Moynihan: I can confirm that that was the thrust of discussions at that time. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have moved forward considerably from that. Obviously, we want to ensure that we achieve further signatories. For example, we understand that the United States and Mexico have since ratified.
Turning to the regulation, the United Kingdom has consistently supported implementation of the protocol through Communitywide action by means of a regulation which is directly applicable in all member states. This is the only way of ensuring that the necessary legislative framework for implementation is in place throughout the Community in good time before the protocol comes into force.
The regulation reflects the dual control of production and consumption in the protocol and applies the protocol limits directly to individual firms. There are limits on the amounts produced by each company. Consumption is controlled through the control of the overall supply of CFCs and halons by limiting the amounts which producing companies can sell within the Community, or use themselves, and the amounts which firms may import from outside the Community. The United Kingdom has firmly supported controlling consumption by controlling supply rather than controlling specific uses, a method which has been shown elsewhere to be inefficient and inflexible—for example, the aerosols in the United States to which I have referred. Rather, it is left to market forces to determine the use to which available supplies are put as prices rise.
In addition to the central control provisions, there are measures, in parallel with those in the protocol, to limit imports from non-parties. There is a management committee to advise the Commission on detailed matters of implementation and provisions for data reporting, inspections and for action if the regulation is infringed.
I shall keep the hon. Member for Linlithgow in touch on that point as we receive further information, because he was right to say that it is technically difficult to ensure that we achieve that objective.
Inevitably, in discussion of the Commission's proposals by member states, some changes have been made, but the regulation agreed in principle does not differ substantially from the original proposals. The main changes are to the provisions relating to import licences, production, inspections and infringement. Import licences are now to be issued by member states rather than by the Commission. Production increases allowed under the protocol for the purposes of industrial rationalisation and to meet the basic domestic needs of developing countries have to be agreed with the member state concerned, and there is now express provision rationalisation within member states. The provision whereby production quotas could be reallocated in the event of a producer beginning production after 1986 has been dropped.
Several changes have been made to the provisions for inspections, including a requirement for the agreement of the member state concerned to Commission officials assisting those of the member state in carrying out inspections, and for the Commission to take appropriate measures to protect the confidentiality of the information obtained. The provisions dealing with infringements have been simplified on the basis that member states should take appropriate legal or administrative action in the event of the regulation being infringed.
In its report, the Select Committee said that it did not understand the statement in the Department's explanatory memorandum on document 4997/88 that the measures in the regulation were not inconsistent with the Government's preference for achieving the reductions required by voluntary action.
The regulation lays down the basic minimum legal framework within which there is complete flexibililty for industry to take steps to reduce the use of CFCs and halons on a voluntary or self-regulatory basis. This self-regulatory approach has already worked well with existing Community measures to establish a production ceiling for CFCs 11 and 12 and to effect reductions in aerosol use. We are keen to encourage a continuation of this kind of approach. Indeed, an essential element of the package agreed at the Environment Council on 16 June was a political resolution which stressed the importance of further voluntary measures to reduce the use of CFCs and halons to the maximum possible extent.

Mr. Dalyell: In its 32nd report of Session 1987–88, the Select Committee on European Legislation states:
The resolution also invites the Commission to seek voluntary agreement with industry on a common Community label for CFC-free products.
Has such agreement been reached? Its importance was emphasised at a meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) arranged with his constituent, Mr. Beckitt, and others, of ICI Runcorn. This is a matter of some importance.

Mr. Moynihan: To the best of my knowledge, agreement on that has not yet been reached, but voluntary action by individual producers has progressed. If more information has emerged since I was briefed on this subject, I shall let the hon. Gentleman know in my winding-up speech.
In the United Kingdom, the aerosol industry has announced that it will phase out non-essential use of CFCs in aerosols by the end of 1989. As aerosols represent over 60 per cent. of CFC use in the United Kingdom, we shall be well ahead of the Montreal timetable for CFC reductions, but we are anxious that all sectors of industry should reduce consumption on a voluntary basis, and officials of my Department and of the Department of Trade and Industry have regular meetings with users of CFCs and halons to establish what steps they are taking to reduce consumption. Moreover, the United Kingdom producers are actively engaged in research and development work to identify and test suitable and safe substitutes and have joined with other firms in Europe, The United States and Japan to hasten the process of commercial development.

Mr. Keith Mans: What steps are the Government taking to encourage research into other, safer, CFCs? Is the research being carried out quickly enough?

Mr. Moynihan: It is important that we push ahead with research urgently. Much research has borne fruit in terms of industry's immediate response, but we are committed, through the protocol, to give suitable assistance to further research in the Community and abroad. That has financial implications which have been taken on board, not least by the Overseas Development Administration. I am satisfied that considerable research is pushing ahead. There is clearly much more work to be done in the light of further evidence of the science attached to depletion of the ozone layer and the range of substances involved. More needs to be done, but I am satisfied that a good deal of initial work has been beneficial.
The Montreal protocol is a major environmental achievement. Since its adoption last year, our understanding of the science has developed and there have been calls for the protocol to be strengthened. In view of the new evidence, we need to prepare for an orderly assessment of the science for the first scheduled review of the measures in 1990. This process of review is already beginning and there will be a series of international scientific and technical meetings in the Netherlands this October, in which the United Kingdom will participate fully. The report of our stratospheric ozone research group, the full version of which should be published in September, will form an important contribution to the review, but the first priority must be to get the protocol into force. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister and I will not disagree to the same extent as we did in the recent debate on acid rain, but we will disagree about the scope of the Montreal convention and how effective the Government's response to the issue has been. We shall disagree, too, on the Government's role in getting the EEC to water down its joint approach to the discussions that took place in Montreal.
Everyone—not only the Minister—has problems pronouncing chlorofluorocarbons. Our Chief Whip had to rehearse it before the parliamentary Labour party meeting last Thursday, at which he had to say the word in the

course of announcing the business. I am pleased to see that so many Conservative Members are interested in chlorofluorocarbons. Either that, or they represent the chemical industry constituencies—there is nothing wrong with that—or they think there will be a vote. I cannot imagine why so many of them are here at this late hour. I used to complain regularly that important environmental issues were put to too late at night and that we should have more serious debates at earlier times so that more hon. Members would be present to discuss them.
There is a theatre called the Theatre in Conservation. It is an environmentalist theatre, a non-party organisation, that puts on shows for children. It is putting on a pantomime at the moment, in which Fluorocarbon is the wicked witch, who comes out of the aerosol can, the ugly sisters are SOx, and NOx and the heroes are Dick Whittington and his catalytic converter and the Greenpeace warriors. So if, in future, the Minister has problems pronouncing chlorofluorocarbons, he has only to think of the Theatre in Conservation and the wicked witch Fluorocarbon, who is destroying our ozone layer.
This is a serious matter. The closing statement from the 330 policy makers and scientists from the 48 countries represented at the Montreal convention began thus:
Humanity is conducting an enormous, unintended, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war.
That was not said by the Labour party, or by me. It was said by those policy makers who discussed the changing atmosphere implications for global security in Toronto in June.
It is imperative to act now to avert an impending crisis of atmospheric pollution. The ozone layer is the only one that we have. If we do not take action now, on the grounds that the link is not proven, and it is later proven, it could easily be too late. The conference identified CFCs, the chemicals believed to be the primary cause of ozone depletion, as important contributors also to the greenhouse effect and called for their near-complete elimination by 2000—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and by the Select Committee.
In the debate on acid rain I was a little critical of the Select Committee's recommendations for not going far enough, but on this issue the Committee has got it virtually perfectly right. I hope that the Government will respond to its recommendations—

Mr. Thurnham: What does the hon. Gentleman mean when he says that the Select Committee has got it virtually perfectly right? With what does he disagree in the report? Is he aware that the British Refrigeration Association has said that it would be almost impossible to replace existing systems if the Committee's report on R22 were accepted? The Heating and Ventilating Contractors Association has said that the consequences for keeping food refrigerated would be unthinkable.

Mr. Roberts: I thought that Conservative Members were here because they represented certain interests. Industries always say that it is impossible to act until they have to, and then find a way of doing so. "Impossible" merely means that the chemical industry might have to spend too much and is worried about its competitors.

Mr. Michael Stern: Might there not be something rather more genuine, in that the chemical industry does not want to produce new poisons, and there is such a thing as toxicity testing, which takes some time?

Mr. Roberts: The argument now is that the industry does not want to get rid of one poison because it might introduce another. Conservative Members are here in force. I shall come to these issues in a minute. I do not want to restrict the British chemical industry so much that it is not in a position to compete with the other chemical industries. However, the industry has to be careful about saying that things cannot be done when it does not know how to do them. As a member of the all-party chemical industries group, I believe that the way forward for the British chemical industry and Imperial Chemical Industries plc is to do the research and produce the substitutes for CFCs. It is sad that the American firm Du Pont is ahead of us, because that is the result of the American Government and, as a consequence, American industry, taking the issue more seriously than we did. We fell for the belief that CFCs were not doing the damage, and that if they were the extent was not proven. The research stopped, and now ICI is fighting desperately to catch up with Du Pont. I hope that it does; I do not want to harm our chemical industry.
The Montreal protocol is an international agreement to cut production and consumption of CFCs by 35 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively by 1999. The House should be clear that that is not a 50 per cent. cut in production, but a 50 per cent. cut in consumption, and only a 35 per cent. cut in production. That means that we can sell CFCs abroad if we do not use them. We can sell them to the Third world, as though the Third world has a different ozone layer. That is where this protocol falls down. It does not go far enough. If the 50 per cent. cut had been in production and not just in consumption, we might have been on the way to having a significant protocol to ratify. Instead, hidden in the fine print is the fact that we may not be using as much, but our industries can produce it and sell it abroad. That is not the way forward, because just as much of the ozone layer will be lost as a result;
Many scientists believe that the cuts do not go anywhere near far enough, and that cuts of 85 per cent. are needed to stabilise the atmosphere. The Select Committee on the Environment recommended that the Montreal protocol be reconvened to negotiate reductions in consumption of CFCs to 15 per cent. of the 1986 levels. That is an 85 per cent. cut. It received good and expert evidence to that effect. That is also in line with the level regarded as necessary to stabilise the atmosphere, and the Government's response is still awaited.
On 14 June 1988, in a Department of the Environment press release—the only response that we have had from the Government—Lord Caithness, the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water, announced:
a group of prominent British scientists have advised the Government that unless emissions of CFCs are reduced much further than the levels required by the 1987 Montreal Protocol more severe depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer is likely to occur.
Those scientists are right. It is not clear what Government thinking about the extent and level of emission reductions required is, and the Minister's speech tonight neither made that clear nor answered the point that the Minister of State made.
On 16 June the EEC agreed to ratify the Montreal protocol. Each EEC member state will be required individually to fulfil the requirements of the protocol. However, we are worried, as we were about the acid rain protocol, about monitoring and implementation of the reduction. Questions need to be asked. It is not clear how effective monitoring of the implementation of the protocol would be put into effect.
The Nordic countries, rightly concerned about their environment, have already announced their intention to aim for reductions of over 90 per cent. by 1995. They have refrigerators, although it is colder there than it is here. They also have air conditioning systems. If they can do it, why can we not? It is exactly t he same as retrofitting power stations and reducing acid rain—the Germans can do it, but we cannot. We always find an excuse.
Major problems remain. including the number of countries that are not party to the protocol which the Minister mentioned. There is the monitoring of imports and exports of CFC to ensure that CFC havens are not set up in countries not party to the protocol, which could easily happen. The protocol provision allowing for a 10 per cent. increase in production for low consumer countries to increase their per capita usage during industrial rationalisation is also an important issue.
The hon. Members who represent chemical industry constituencies are worried about British products. It is of considerable concern that the figures for United Kingdom production and consumption of CFCs are not available to the public. We learned only recently that more than 60 per cent. of United Kingdom CFC usage is in aerosols and that figure was much higher than expected.
In June 1988 the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association reversed its previous position and recommended that its members should label aerosols. The Select Committee on the Environment recommended mandatory ozone-friendly labelling schemes, but the Government are still saying, "Leave it to market forces." How we can leave the market to decide whether people should buy ozone-friendly aerosols or non-ozone-friendly aerosols when we do not have them labelled defeats me. I share the all-party recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment that it cannot be left to market forces and that it should be a mandatory requirement for aerosols that do not have CFCs in them to be labelled "ozone-friendly".
The Select Committee also recommended banning CFCs in aerosols except for medical use, if the phasing out of CFCs is not rapid enough. In March, when giving evidence to the Select Committee, Lord Caithness said that the voluntary approach had worked. I dispute that. Articles in the industrial press suggest that consumer pressure and the fear of falling sales have been the key factors.
I am concerned about the amount of self-regulation by industry. The British Aerosol Manufacturers Association reports that by the end of 1989 only 10 per cent. of aerosols will use CFCs as propellants. That figure represents essential uses and, if that is true, it is good, but there is currently no procedure for challenging the definition of a product as an essential use, and the Government must consider introducing legislation. Furthermore, 10 per cent. is higher than in many countries which have already banned CFCs in aerosols, and because of the high proportion of CFC aerosols used in the United Kingdom, 10 per cent. is not negligible.
The Select Committee on the Environment recommended that the Department of the Environment should take a strong lead in co-ordinating European research and that Government funds should be made available for that purpose. On 9 July 1988 newspapers reported that the Natural Environmental Research Council, which has been losing Government funds, is shedding 130 scientific posts. If the Minister is serious about those environmental issues, it is an absolute tragedy and a scandal that environmental research is not given higher priority by the Government.
There is massive scientific evidence of ozone depletion, the most up-to-date and reliable of which was published in March 1988 in the report of the Ozone Trends Panel. That body was made up of more than 100 international scientists and was backed up by, among others, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It concluded that there has been a large, sudden and unexpected decrease in the abundance of springtime Antarctic ozone during the past decade. Ozone decreases of more than 50 per cent. in the total column, and 95 per cent. locally between 15 and 20 km altitude have been observed.
Everyone knows about the hole over the Antarctic, but what about other areas? In the northern hemisphere there have been measurable decreases between 1969 and 1986 of ozone ranging from 1·7 to 3 per cent. at latitudes between 30 and 64 deg. The decreases are most pronounced and range from 2·3 to 6·2 per cent. during the winter months. That depletion occurs over densely populated areas, including Britain, Europe, the United States of America, Japan, much of the Soviet Union, China and the middle east. The observed changes may be due wholly or in part to the increased abundance of trace gases, primarily CFCs: Once the CFCs get into the atmosphere, they hang around for 100 years. They will be a danger for a long time.
The scientists say:
The weight of evidence strongly indicates that man-made chlorine species are primarily responsible for the observed decrease in ozone within the polar vortex.
It is as provable as the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and the causes of acid rain.
Summing up all the scientists' comments, Dr. Robert Watson of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said:
The mean values of the observed decreases at mid and high latitudes in winter are larger than the mean values of the predicted decreases.
I do not really understand that. He continued:
Things are far worse than we thought.
I understand that, though. The Government admit that there is a problem. We are worried about the extent to which their actions will solve it.
It is all very well to quote the scientific evidence and technical information, but the reality is that the depletion of the ozone layer will cause skin cancer. The herpes virus, hepatitis and parasitic infections of the skin will increase, as will senile eye cataracts. Significant changes in total column ozone will disturb crop yields. Increases above 10 per cent. of UV-B—the ultra-violet rays that get through the ozone layer—will affect fish. There will be many other consequences, and that is why it is important to regard this as an important issue. It will affect the entire planet and the relationships in the ecosystem. It is not something that does not matter to the British people.
We want the Government to be more decisive in acting to persuade—and if necessary to legislate—industry to stop using CFCs. Of course it cannot be done overnight, but we believe that this protocol does not go far enough. The Government have been guilty of back-pedalling in the EEC. They should assist the British chemical industry by funding research into finding CFC substitutes. Du Pont has discovered such substitutes.
The Government should re-evaluate the reductions required, taking into account the comments of the Ozone Trends Panel and the Toronto conference. We wish to clarify the role of the United Kingdom in pushing for the urgent reconvention of the Montreal protocol and exertion of diplomatic activity to encourage other nations to join the process. The Minister seemed to agree with that proposition.
We wish to clarify the procedures for monitoring implementation of cuts in the United Kingdom and the possibility of aiming for more radical measures similar to those being adopted by the Nordic countries. We must step up research and investment, and we must have legislation to label products and a timetable for bans on non-essential uses of CFCs as soon as alternatives become available.

Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in its evidence to the Select Committee, ICI made it clear that extra resources would not speed up the search for alternatives to CFCs?

Mr. Roberts: ICI said that, but I do not necessarily believe it. It is a matter of resources, research and co-operation among the chemical industries of all the developed countries.
The British industry is selling itself short. Its future lies in competing in a world that is worried about the environment, especially the ozone layer. It must carry out the research, develop the alternatives as quickly as possible and get on with the job. ICI and others will take the lead from a Government who seem to be the dirty men of Europe, who do not push or press, who want to drag their coat tails on this issue and who are not as concerned about the environment as they should be. I am concerned about jobs in the British chemical industry and about its future. If the United States—our main competitor—and the British Government sign the international agreements, there should be fair competition to produce alternatives.
The protocol is inadequate. To some extent it is a con, in that it refers to a 50 per cent. cut in consumption but only a 35 per cent. cut in production. Even after the protocol is ratified we shall still produce 65 per cent. of our 1986 production. I hope that the Minister will take the issue seriously and will return from his Department with assurances on legislation, labelling and further action to get international agreement that goes much further than the protocol.

Mr. Michael Stern: I am grateful for the opportunity to make what I hope will be a brief contribution to the debate in view of the number of hon. Members who want to participate.
I have two concerns about the Montreal protocol. The first is contained in the developing countries exception. Under the protocol, developing countries are given special rights to produce up to 0·5 kg per head of new production


of CFCs and to consume up to 0·3 kg per head. Among those developing countries are the People's Republic of China, which on its own would be permitted to increase world production of CFCs by 50 per cent., and India and Thailand, which would be able to increase production by 0·5 kg per head. Therefore, under the protocol, it is possible to double production of CFCs in 10 years. That is frightening. It makes what we are doing under the protocol look like stubbing out a bookmatch in our backyard while a forest fire rages elsewhere.
I hope that, when the nations again get together to look at the Montreal protocol, they will look not so much at the interests of the developing world in terms of building its industry as at overall world production of CFCs. As the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) rightly said, most of our production is exported. I see no reason why that production should be ignored in terms of world production and should not be substituted for production that would otherwise arise in the developing countries.
My second concern about the protocol relates to the concept—which is rather odd when analysed—of the calculated level index, whereby some CFCs and some halons are worse than others. It applies complex mathematical formulae to the number assigned to each chemical in order to arrive at future production levels. That is fine, until one realises that the original index to which the mathematical formulae apply is a complete mystery. It is just plucked out of the air. In the Montreal protocol, we are multiplying apples and pears and, as any school child knows, to do so is purely fruitless.
The calculated level index is important when we consider controls on production because, however meaningless it is, it is the base on which future changes in production levels can be made. EEC document 4997/88 calls for periodical revision of the indices. The protocol provides for a two-thirds majority of parties to the protocol to be able to make revisions to the indices and for representatives of 50 per cent. of world consumption, not production, who are parties to the protocol, to be able to call for revisions.
As we know, the United Kingdom is low in its use of CFCs. It is high on production and low on consumption. Therefore, in any future revision of the Montreal protocol, if one pools those facts, and pools the majorities, one can see who will come out worst on the deal. Because we are high producers and low consumers, and because of the way in which the majorities under the Montreal convention are structured, inevitably we shall get the short straw. That needs to be examined again on a revision of the convention from the point of view of making sure that the undoubted pain that the industry will go through over the next few years is not unfairly borne in this country.
Much has been said about the speed with which the industry should react. I was very worried by what appeared to be the attitude of the hon. Member for Bootle, who seemed to brush aside the possibility that, because we are dealing with substances that are known to be highly dangerous and we are looking for substitutes, we might rush ahead and produce substitutes, which, because of the chemicals that we are dealing with, could prove far more dangerous than the chemicals that they are designed to replace. The industry is doing everything that it can to produce the chemicals that are needed as quickly as possible. It is already known that the chemicals that are needed as replacements for some industrial purposes are not yet available. If we were just to go blindly ahead and

rush into production with the first chemical that was available, we could end up with the industrial equivalent of another Thalidomide disaster.
We must replace CFCs with chemicals that are non-flammable, of low toxicity and have a good thermodynamic performance. For many uses, such as low-temperature refrigeration, those new chemicals are not yet available. The industry is doing everything that it can.

Mr. Allan Roberts: As the Minister and I said, the major use of 60 per cent. of CFCs is for propellants in aerosols. I grant that there are now difficulties with substitutes for the other uses, but there are not for the production of substitutes for propellants in aerosol cans. If that alone were done, it would make a major impact—bigger than that of the protocol.

Mr. Stern: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association has already announced that, under present rules, it will be able to reduce use in aerosols to 10 per cent. of the 1976 levels by the end of next year. So the hon. Gentleman is biting on a bullet that does not exist.
The research must be done and the new chemicals found. In this country, we need to use the Montreal protocol and the convention that we are now discussing to encourage the industry to produce what we know it can produce, but at the same time let us not fall into the trap of assuming that it is easy or that there is a quick substitute for any of those uses. There is not.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend said that this country might suffer disproportionately because we produce more in proportion to our consumption than other countries, but has he reflected on what will happen to the price of the product if restrictions are placed on supply? Perhaps we shall gain in that way.

Mr. Stern: I must leave my hon. Friend to develop that point. I admit that I am concerned more from the point of view of the industry to make sure that it is given the chance of producing the product before it can price it, and from the point of view that there are undoubted dangers in those products, so, as the protocol permits and encourages, we must allow the price levels to reflect the relative toxicities of the products.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) talked about chlorofluorocarbons. The Minister spoke about them, as I shall, as CFCs because it is much too late at night to try to pronounce chlorofluorocarbons.
Hon. Members have talked about chemical substances, CFCs and protocols. Let us try to put the debate, late at night though it is, in perspective by defining the substances that we are discussing. We are talking about everyday substances in products in everyday use in the home. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said that 60 per cent. of the product goes into aerosols. I do not know where he got that figure, but I shall accept it.
Increasingly, CFCs are being used in refrigerants. The ordinary refrigerator in the home and refrigerators in shops and abattoirs use them They are also extensively used in the plastics industry, in which their use is growing. Until a few years ago CFCs were regarded as scientific


miracles. Theywere looked upon as safe products and, as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) has said, were economical to manufacture. An important feature of CFCs is that they are non-flammable, while many alternatives, including those in aerosols, are flammable and highly dangerous. CFCs are also non-toxic.
CFCs were regarded as wonder products and in my constituency ICI, which manufactures them, expanded enormously and put tens of millions of pounds into increasing production. Rock Savage in Runcorn in my constituency is the biggest plant in the United Kingdom—and probably the biggest plant in Europe—producing CFCs. I had the privilege three or four years ago of opening an extension to that plant. I was proud to say at that time that it provided jobs for my constituents and exports for Britain. I admit that not many jobs are provided by the direct manufacture of CFCs because this is a highly capital-intensive industry, but many spin-off jobs are provided. There are jobs in administration and sales and in transporting the material and there are jobs in exporting.
A few years ago I was proud of what ICI and Rock Savage were producing for Britain, but then we had the attack, mainly from the United States of America, on CFCs. Suddenly, they were responsible for damage to the ozone layer. That is accepted by the United Kingdom, which is a signatory to the Montreal accord. As the Minister said, it is also accepted by the Soviet bloc and by most countries.
As a result of the ozone layer theory, many things happened. I am not convinced that CFCs are responsible for the hole in the layer over the Antarctic. I am not a scientist, but I have been an officer of the all-party chemical industries group since its existence and I have taken a keen interest in scientific development and in our chemical industry. I think that you too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were a founder member of the group in 1967. The group is approaching its 21st birthday.
As a trained lawyer, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle that I do not accept that there is proof to the same extent as the proof that cigarettes damage one's health and lungs that CFCs damage the ozone layer.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I should like to quote the words of Dr. Joe Farman, a British scientist and member of the British Antarctic Survey, which discovered the hole in the ozone. Initially, he was very open-minded about the cause of the ozone hole above the Antarctic, and he remained so for several years. However, intensive scientific studies have persuaded him that CFCs are, indeed, the cause, as all the leading scientists agree. He said:
Debate is over among those competent to judge.
That comes from someone who is uniquely competent to judge. I advise my right hon. Friend to follow world opinion and the opinion of all the leading scientists in this matter.

Mr. Oakes: If hon. Members followed scientists and outside organisations in the hysteria that is sometimes engendered, we should be in a sorry state. Hon. Members should be sceptical of experts, whoever they are. We should apply a little common sense. My hon. Friend the

Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) mentioned a member of the British Antarctic Survey, which discovered the hole over the Antarctic a few years ago. That hole could have existed for a million years. No one had looked for it before and no one knew it was there.

Mr. Michael Lord: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and I know that he is putting a layman's or a lawyer's point. Can he tell the House whether a single scientist has suggested that the causes of the problems are other than those that the House is discussing?

Mr. Oakes: I am saying that few scientists would say that there is absolute proof. Scientists say that there is circumstantial evidence, and nations have accepted that. I am not opposing the documents; I am merely advancing my view, which is that we need to have a healthy scepticism. I agree with what a great comedian said on television last Sunday; indeed, I thought that I had invented it. I cannot believe that the fact that I spray deodorant under my arms in my bathroom can have caused a great hole in the ozone layer in the Antarctic. It stretches credulity. Some scientists say that it is so, but we must be sceptical.
As I said, the proposition has been accepted not only by Governments but by the industry. I mention that for one reason. The Minister rightly said that in 1990 there is to be a proper review, on proper evidence, of what is happening. I hope that all nations are continuing their research. I hope that the British Antarctic Survey will continue its research and that in 1990 or 1994, if there is alternative evidence—as there may well be—scientists will say that they have made a mistake. I hope that we shall not crucify a very useful industry on the ground of what may have been a mistake.
There is hope in the documents that the 1990 date can still be achieved if further evidence comes to light between now and then. I hope that the Minister and the House will take that into account.
What worries me is that at first the attack was on aerosols—perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly; I do not know. The attack will now move on to refrigerants and then, inevitably, to plastics. Any use of CFCs—not only in aerosols—will be regarded as a potential source of danger. Indeed, motions have already appeared on the Order Paper—I have tried to amend them—calling for an immediate ban on aerosols and other uses of CFCs. At the moment, no adequate, economical, non-toxic and non-flammable alternative exists. If we were to use carbon dioxide, for example, as a refrigerant, can we imagine what size our refrigerators would be? If we were to use butane aerosols, there would be an immediate danger of flammability, which we have not got with CFCs.
These documents are reasonable in that they give time for the development of a practical and economic alternative to existing CFCs. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the excellent briefing that we had from ICI, explaining clearly and openly to hon. Members the current position and what it was doing. Already ICI has begun a massive programme of research in its laboratory at Runcorn and in a pilot plant which is in production at Westbank in Widnes. Funnily enough, that plant is on the site of the old Deacon works, which was one of the first chemical plants in the United Kingdom. The foundation of part of our chemical


industry began on the very site where ICI's pilot plant is. It is very close to the Halton chemical museum, of which I am a trustee and which we are working hard to establish as a major chemical museum not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe.
I have seen the pilot plant which is in production. Millions of pounds are being invested by ICI in CFCs which will be non-malign to the environment. Over the next two years £3 million per annum is to be spent on a rapid expansion of the plant. That is a lot of money in investment terms. What about manpower? By 1990, 200 scientists and technicians will be working on this alone.
The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) talked about the need for speed. I agree with him, as does ICI. One sensible development by ICI to achieve speed is that engineers are working with the chemists now so that there will not he production problems when the product is invented. They are working together now so that the production will flow quickly and evenly when the right product is found.
The research must be centred on CFCs which are ozone-benign. Not all CFCs are malign to the ozone layer. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West was right when he said that three qualities are needed for the new product: it must have good thermodynamic performance, it must be non-flammable and it must have low toxicity. I agree entirely with him that the new product must be thoroughly tested so that we do not invent a product which could be alleged to be more damaging that the product we already have because of toxicity. That is why ICI honestly and openly in its evidence to the Select Committee said that no matter what the research might be and no matter what expenditure is made, we still come back to the essential problem of the possible toxicity of a new product.
No matter how fast the research goes or how well the production problems can he overcome, proper testing for a safe product will take a minimum of five years. That is only for the testing. Just as drugs have to be tested over a period, so will this product. If it is thought to be all right, after being tested over only 12 months or two years, and there are subsequent defects or harmful consequences, it would not be right for British industry to launch that product on the world. Therefore, a five-year testing period is essential. I say that clearly to the House. It is a crucial element, no less crucial than achieving the maximum possible safety for the public.
I ask the Minister to resist any demands from hon. Members, from organisations or—because one never knows when it will change its mind—from Europe to speed matters even faster, to the detriment of safety.
The documents as drafted will allow that essential research to take place within a feasible time scale. I am convinced that, because of its investment and the dedication of its scientists, technicians and engineers, ICI will find a practical alternative to the existing CFCs and that that alternative will be British.

Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman has rightly paid tribute to the work of ICI in this sphere and reference has been made to the work being done by Du Pont. We should, to complete the triangle, mention the work of ISC in my constituency.

Mr. Oakes: The Chinese have an expression about allowing a thousand flowers to bloom. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. But I have seen the work that ICI has

been doing and I know how advanced it is. I am proud of that research, and I hope that the future production of the alternative products about which we have been speaking, which will be so useful to mankind, will occur in my constituency, in the birthplace, the first home, the very heartland, of the British chemical industry.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I shall cut short my remarks in view of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, and concentrate on document 4997/88. There seems to be a discrepancy between what is said in the explanatory memorandum and in the document. The memorandum states:
Recent scientific reports on the depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica in Spring and other studies on the total ozone layer indicate that a reduction in the use of chlorofluorocarbons and halons is appropriate. The use of these substances is thought to be a probable cause for the depletion of the ozone layer.
Note the weasel words in that memorandum, whereas—I am happy to say—the document is more positive. in that it states:
Whereas it is established that continued emissions of chlorofluorocarbons and halons at current levels are likely to cause significant damage to the ozone layer; whereas there is international consensus that significant reductions in both production and consumption of all such substances arc necessary…whereas it is necessary for the protection, promotion and improvement of the environment to conclude the Vienna Convention and its Protocol, which is based on the principle of preventive action to avoid further damage to the ozone layer".
That is the right way to put it. We cannot afford inaction. Even as we speak, more and more of these wretched substances are being pumped into the stratosphere. Production is now running at between 700,000 and 1 million tonnes per annum. Even if that level were reduced, those substances would still be going into the stratosphere, and, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) pointed out, once they have undergone the metamorphosis into chlorine, that remains there for 100 years, continuing to do damage.
Much has been said about jobs, and I do not denigrate any of those remarks, but if we end up without an ozone layer, the results will be absolutely horrendous.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman may be right or wrong, but is it not rather important to get at the truth of his assertions? Does he accept that the view of John Pyle—chairman of the Minister's stratosphere ozone layer review group—that Europe urgently needs a research aircraft like the American ER2 to do some basic research, especially over the Arctic, is really the litmus test of whether his assertions and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) are right? The truth is that we do not know yet, and a research aircraft is desperately needed.

Mr. Summerson: We already know a great deal following the American airborne Antarctic ozone experiment, which finished only a month or two ago, but I agree that we need to do more research, especially over the Arctic. An expedition is at present looking into conditions there, but we need to learn more.
There are two important things that the European Community could do to avoid further damage to the ozone layer. First, it should permit no imports of such substances—and, by the same token, permit no exports.
Secondly, there should be mandatory labelling of aerosols. Many other things could be done, but I consider those the most important.
Let me conclude by quoting what has been said by Dr. Joe Farman of the British Antarctic Survey. I also take this opportunity of paying tribute to the survey and the important work that it has done: long may it continue. Dr. Farman says:
Had the delegates at Montreal seen the latest profiles of ozone, chlorine and the like from Antartica, then the cuts in the protocol would probably have been more stringent, and with fewer exceptions allowed. Just what, one may wonder, made it essential for the protocol to be agreed when it was? Was it really concern for the ozone layer? There is a simple test of this. Paragraph ii of Article 2 of the protocol reads: `Nowithstanding the provisions contained in the Article Parties may take more stringent measures than those required by this article'
I am glad that the Government have done what they have done already, but we need to do much more, and I hope that they will give the lead.

Mrs Ray Michie: I want to make a brief contribution to the debate, which is welcome and well timed in view of the Toronto summit in June. The summit recognised that CFCs are important contributors to the so-called "greenhouse effect" and called for their near-elimination by the year 2000.
The Montreal protocol, as we have heard, seeks a reduction in worldwide CFC production by the end of the century, but most scientists believe that that will not be enough. I urge the Minister to give an international lead and begin negotiations to reduce levels by the 85 per cent. now being called for. We have heard about the Nordic countries, which have announced that they are aiming for reductions of over 90 per cent. by 1995.
No country can tackle the task in isolation, and I was interested to note the Minister's remarks about the attempts to involve more countries in signing the protocol. That is obviously important, but what kind of monitoring will be carried out to ensure that countries that are not party to the protocol do not become havens for CFCs? I agree that all aerosols should be labelled, and we welcome the moves made voluntarily by companies and the British Aerosol Manufacturers Association to label goods. McDonalds is to abandon the use of CFCs when making its fast-food cartons. The general public have also played their part by putting pressure on manufacturers to label goods, but I believe that labelling should be made compulsory.
I too, commend ICI for its work and hope that it will be ahead of the Department in coming up with substitutes for CFCs.
The Government say that they are committed to improvement, especially by means of research. I hope that the Minister will explain what benefits will be gained by shedding 130 scientific posts from the Natural Environment Research Council. It is extremely worrying that so many scientific posts are disappearing in this and other areas. We must move faster in seeking to have CFCs banned altogether from manufacturing, except for medical products.
The situation is so serious that it is essential that we act with real urgency. I know that it is difficult for many to

imagine what will happen with further depletion of the ozone layer. There is no doubt, however, that the climate will continue to become warmer. We have already a modern-day dust bowl in the United States. The sea level will rise. We have heard about beaches being eroded in Australia. Research that has been undertaken at Cambridge university shows that British plants and trees have begun to change.

Mr. Stern: The hon. Lady is talking about the greenhouse effect as a certainty, but there is considerable scientific dispute about it. If she is right, does she agree that instead of concerning herself with the minor contribution that CFCs make she should argue for a reduction in the fossil fuel burn, which has an effect five times greater than CFCs? If the hon. Lady is right, the quickest way to deal with the greenhouse effect would be to close the fossil fuel plants and introduce more nuclear power generation.

Mrs. Michie: We must address ourselves to that issue as well, but we are discussing CFCs tonight. I shall confine myself to the motion and the implications that CFCs have on the depletion of the ozone layer.
We would be foolish to ignore what could happen, such as food growth diminishing and fresh water supplies being depleted. Such consequences would increase political instability and the potential for international conflict. Nothing could be more telling than the first sentence of the draft conference statement from Toronto, which reads:
Humanity is conducting an uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war.
We must take these issues seriously. I accept what the Minister has said this evening—I am sure that I shall accept what he says when he replies—but I do not accept that we are going far enough or fast enough.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I was disappointed by the speech of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) said that we must keep an open mind and arrive at decisions in a balanced way, but the hon. Member for Bootle merely read out passages from Select Committee reports and said that he was in virtually complete agreement with them. He did not say where he differed from them. It is obvious that he does not know where he differs from them, which leaves us wondering whether he has any thoughts of his own.
I was especially disappointed when the hon. Member for Bootle failed to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on achieving the first ever international agreement on the prevention of environmental problems. It is greatly to the credit of the Government, and to the work of my hon. Friend, to have brought the protocol about.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon, Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thurnham: I do not have time to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
The hon. Member for Bootle did not give credit to the voluntary work that has been done by industry. The aerosol industry has said that it can reduce the use of CFCs by 90 per cent. The packaging industry has said that there will be voluntary phasing out of their use by most of the firms in the retailing industry.
I shall comment briefly on the refrigeration industry, of which I have personal experience. The use of CFCs as refrigerants is only about. 11 per cent. of all uses, but the reduction and elimination of harmful CFCs presents a considerable challenge to the industry and there has been a strong and positive response by the trade associations.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware of the work of the Institute of Refrigeration, as he presented the opening address to the helpful, useful and positive conference which was held on 18 May. The British Refrigeration Association has just announced that it is to hold a user group conference on 13 October, and I am sure that that will play a useful part in leading the industry. The Heating and Ventilating Contractors Association has issued a pocket guide, with six dos and six don'ts. Individual firms have also made contributions. We have heard of the work of the three manufacturers of refrigerants. I should like to mention one particular user, Sainsbury, for its work in developing a pressure relief valve with much less leakage than the valves which were used previously.
There has been no mention of the rigid urethane foam manufacturers. Five times as much CFC is used in the insulation in domestic refrigerators as in the refrigeration system itself, so obviously there is scope for searching for new alternatives for insulation.
It has been said that 50 to 75 per cent. of the consumption of CFCs in the refrigeration industry is in the maintenance of existing systems, and that 10 per cent. of the gas in existing systems has to be replaced each year. That represents a major challenge to the maintenance and service industry which has been something of a Cinderella industry in the past, but I am confident that it will respond and follow the lead of the trade associations and large firms in the industry. The HVCA guide will be very useful, and the conference shortly to be held by the British Refrigeration Association has the objective of
establishing voluntary codes of good practice for the care and use of CFC refrigeration in commercial installations, as well as developing responsibly engineered solutions for the future, as acceptable replacements for existing refrigerants are developed.
The lead given by the users will encourage contractors to develop good practices. It is an industry which in the past has not always the dos and donts listed in the HVCA guide, which I am sure will be helpful. But there is a word of warning. If the industry does not respond positively, there is the question of further controls on R22. The 85 per cent. cut mentioned by Opposition Members would have a very serious effect both on the industry and on the people in general who would suffer.
If the hon. Member for Bootle had done more than read the Select Committee report, and had read the Library reference note, he would have seen that any rash further restrictions could lead not only to job losses in this country, but to deprivation in technologies in Third-world countries, and that people's lives could be immediately endangered by too rapid introduction of new, untested products.
The industry must respond positively so that too strict control should not be imposed, in the interests of the protection of the environment, above all. In winding up the debate, I should be interested if my hon. Friend will say what action the Government are taking on some of the problems, such as the scrapping of old fridges and the saving and recycling of some refrigerants.
Perhaps he will have a word with his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the EC directive on frozen foods which calls for much lower temperatures to be used in that industry and would impose greater burdens on that industry when we are being asked to use less refrigerant. In this country we consume more frozen food per head than in any other country, which is one reason why we should pay more attention to the practical aspects of this convention. The Minister has said that we should strike a balance and that he will be keeping the issues strictly and closely under review, but I am sure that he can expect a good response from the refrigeration industry.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I endorse the Government's support for the Montreal protocol, but although these documents are welcome, they do not go far enough. We will have to take this problem must more seriously during the next 10 years.
I am a chemist. Chemistry was my degree subject. Many years ago, while at Oxford, I wrote an essay on the organic compounds of fluorine. I found the subject fascinating. The essay ran to 26 sides of paper, but my speech will be much shorter.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is not speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, but he told me that his thesis was on CFCs and that he would lend it to me so that I could read from it.

Mr. Williams: I am afraid that my thesis was on a different subject. I found freons fascinating 25 years ago when I wrote that essay but, 10 years ago, when I was a college lecturer on environmental science, I started to read about the effects of freons and CFCs on the ozone layer. That effect was predicted theoretically before it was discovered practically.
CFCs are almost completely inert. They are nonflammable and non-toxic. It was predicted in the early 1970s that, once they were released, they would persist and could not be broken down or be leached out of the atmosphere by rainwater. ft was established that they could be removed only by drifting to the upper reaches of the atmosphere, where they would be broken down by ultra-violet rays and where there was a danger that they would damage the ozone layer.
The prediction alone was enough to persuade the United States to ban aerosols in 1978. Through Dr. Joe Farman in the 1980s, we received evidence of a hole developing in the ozone layer above the Antarctic. It is riot a trivial hole, as the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) suggested. It is massive—it is as big as the United States and as deep as Mount Everest. It appears every year between August and October, and the extent of the ozone depletion grows each year. The ozone concentration today is less than half what it was in the 1970s.

Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As we are in the last minute of the debate, I should like to put it on record that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised important issues and I shall write to them in full as soon as possible. If hon. Members who have not caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would care to write to me, I shall respond to their arguments as well.

Mr. Williams: I thought that this was an open-ended debate. Anyone who treats this topic lightly does a great disservice to life on the planet, as CFCs——

It being one and half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 [Exempted Business].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8335/87 and 4997/88 + COR1 on control of chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer; supports the implementation of the Montreal Protocol through Community-wide action; endorses the control of consumption of ozone-depleting substances through control of their overall supply; and encourages continuing action by all sectors of industry on a voluntary basis to reduce use of these substances to the maximum possible extent.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Education (Rochdale)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Sir Cyril Smith: I am delighted to have the opportunity to fire the first public salvo at national Government level at the proposals now with the Secretary of State for Education and Science to reorganise education in Rochdale—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that if hon. Members wish to discuss matters other than the Adjournment they will do so outside the Chamber.

Sir Cyril Smith: I have no hesitation in urging the Secretary of State to reject the proposals from Rochdale. For the children in my constituency, the proposals will lead to a lowering of standards, a reduction of opportunities and the abolition of choice. What is more, they will do so at an increased cost to the ratepayers.
As I do not consider cost to be the main argument—it is merely a complementary one—I shall deal with it first. Figures ranging from £10 million to £21 million are floating around as representing the cost of reorganisation. Such expenditure inevitably adds up to £1 million a year to the revenue estimates—to educate fewer children in fewer buildings. That extra cost comes not from more books, materials or even teachers, but basically from interest on capital borrowed and the repayment of loan charges.
I said that the scheme now with the Minister was not properly costed—a fact which was openly admitted at a recent public meeting by the chairman of the Rochdale education committee. That leads me to my first important submission. It is extremely doubtful whether the scheme presented to the Minister meets the requirements of procedure laid down in DES guidelines. The proposals are procedurally flawed in other respects, too—most notably in the manner in which the consultation process was practised. No alternative scheme was put before parents in the 12 months before the submission to the Minister. Any alternatives that were put to them were put in 1981 or 1982.
The consultative process was a sham. The authority informed parents; it did not consult. Parents were often denied the right to vote at meetings, and the propaganda issued before the meetings at considerable expense to the ratepayers blatantly promoted only one scheme of education in Rochdale. Such meetings as were held were conducted not at a formative stage of the proposals but after the local education authority was firmly committed. Despite parental objections, no significant changes were made to the plan.
As required by the procedures, the local authority has received a document of objection to the plan from CARE, a spontaneously organised body of parents who formed themselves into a voluntary organisation to promote a campaign against the reorganisation of education—CARE. The organisation has done a superb job, and I commend its objection document to the Minister, who will receive a copy from the local authority. It is quite a substantial document. It is now with the local authority, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that CARE is allowed to see a copy of the authority's reply to it. The Minister will be able to read in the objection document


some of the disgusting procedures that went on at some of the so-called consultative meetings. I urge him, on receipt of it, to look at examples of Chawfield, Sidall Moor and Calder hill schools.
The chairman of the education committee in Rochdale, who is paid a salary by one education authority and then released for two or three days a week, on salary, to act as chairman of the Rochdale education authority, with another fee of thousands of pounds, is on record as saying:
The people who attend the meetings are those who are opposed to the proposals.
Perhaps that explains why parents were not allowed to vote at the meetings that were held. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the objections submitted by CARE will be given full emphasis in his consideration and, further, that he will agree to meet a deputation of the parents, led by me, before a decision on the proposals is taken, presumably in the autumn.
My first submission is that the proposals have resulted from a highly suspect procedure and improper consultation and that they have not been properly costed and do not provide alternatives. I hope that the Minister will duly consider that aspect of the submission.
I was a member of the Rochdale education committee for 23 years, and its chairman for over six years. It has a superb education record. I am not anxious to see that record washed away because of political ideology at worst, and the desire for change, any change, at best. The existing system has much to commend it, and I see no reason to change it. Uniformity of system throughout the borough is not an adequate reason.
Let us look at one school—Calder hill—which has a superb record. I have selected it because all the parents there overwhelmingly rejected the proposals, in another document, which has been sent to the local authority, and which the Secretary of State will also soon receive and be able to read. I hope, again, that the Minister can assure me that that submission, from the staff-parents association at Calder hill school, will have his full consideration, and that the parents from that school will be able to meet him. We would love to welcome the Minister to the school.
The subjects available in the school at fifth and sixth form level number close on 30. The external examination pass rate is well above the national average. There is an open sixth form of 325 students, of whom, last year, 105 went on to the upper sixth. Of those 105, 75 pupils gained entry to various universities and similar institutions to read for degree courses. Seven of those went to Oxford.
That is a wonderful record, and it includes subjects such as business studies, chemistry, creative art, drama, economics, English, Urdu, electronics, geology, history, computer technology, statistics and many others. Despite that record of achievement and that breadth of success, in the proposals submitted to the Minister is the proposal to destroy it. That is an act of sheer criminal vandalism of the worst order.
The total abolition of sixth forms in our schools is the most disgraceful part of the scheme because it denies choice in the future. There are young people at 16 who can best succeed in a college-like discipline, but others need the informal adult, but none the less more formal, sixth form discipline in secondary school. All my experience teaches me that that is a fact. This scheme will deny that choice to all the 16-plus young people wishing to continue in education in Rochdale, because the only choice that will be offered to them will be a tertiary college.
I stress that it is hoped that that tertiary college can be provided at what is now De La Salle training college. Young people from my constituency will be bussed several miles to the site of that college. I stress again that it is hoped that the tertiary college will be there, because, if the site is not obtained by the local education authority, the proposed tertiary college will have to be on a split site, and that would be an even bigger education disaster for the students.
I understand that even if the De La Salle site is obtained, a split site will still be necessary for the proposed tertiary college for up to 10 years. During that interim period the education of 16-plus youngsters will be adversely affected. Those young people—like all other young people—cannot live the years again during which they will have been denied educational opportunity. If De La Salle is not ultimately available, presumably new proposals would again have to be submitted for consultation at local level.
I have used Calder hill as an example, but other schools have excellent sixth forms which can be equally defended and which, too, will be destroyed.
In Rochdale we have the middle school system. Those schools do and have done a superb job. It is a wilful waste of expertise and experience to abandon such a system merely to impose a uniform scheme of an extremely different type. The CARE document excellently argues the case for middle schools, and I again commend it to the Minister's attention. In his consideration he should not overlook the fact that those middle schools do the foundation work of the upper schools.
I understand that last year Her Majesty's inspectorate reported on those middle schools in Rochdale, but the report has not been published. As we have some grounds for having an idea of what that report contains, we welcome the publication of the HMI comments.
The local education authority proposes to establish 12 schools for 11 to 16-year-olds. Six of those schools will fail to reach six-form entry. That is despite the fact that the local education authority's own study showed that a six-form entry school, let alone a smaller one, would be more restricted in the range of options available for individual students.
This is an Adjournment debate, so the clock is always against one. The case against those proposals is overwhelming. I have merely touched on the basic outline of that opposition. I say again that I hope that the Minister will agree to meet us in a few weeks' time for further discussion.
We have a Minister who constantly and publicly declares his belief in parental power. I now urge him to put his money where his mouth is. If he does that, he will reject these proposals because parents wish him to do so. He will reject them because they abolish excellence and choice, because they are economic nonsense, are based on political dogma and ignore what is in the best educational interests of children in my constituency.
The Minister's decision within the last 14 days on Cronkeyshaw primary school in my constituency gave great joy to parents, and I am grateful to him for it, bat we have had a stupid reaction from some councillors, who cannot be grateful in defeat—a fact demonstrated by some of them on previous occasions. They are now threatening to punish the children by refusing to repair the roof of the school. I believe that at last week's town council meeting the chairman said that the decision was based. not on


educational grounds, but on the personal relationship between the Minister and me. The chairman would have a shock if she saw some of the letters that I have written to the Minister in the past few months.
I warn the Department that it is dealing with a petulant chairman and an authority a few of whose councillors are not in the first flight. One of them joined us recently from West Bromwich or Southampton—somewhere like that. I am sure that the Minister can be relied upon to back his judgment, and that of the parents, and to reject the proposals before him. I join the parents in inviting the Minister to reject those proposals. I commend to him the documents produced by CARE and the parent-teacher association of Calder Hill school, and I look forward to the ongoing dialogue which I am sure the Minister will promise in his reply.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Dunn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) on obtaining this Adjournment debate on the proposed changes to primary and secondary schools, and to first, middle and upper schools, in Rochdale. I am aware that the issue is stimulating much local interest and discussion. I know the area, because I am a native of south-east Lancashire. We are grateful to see in the Chamber, supporting the hon. Member for Rochdale, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), and, in support of me, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder). We have quite an attendance for this Adjournment debate.
On a more personal note, may I say how delighted I was when the hon. Gentleman recently joined the ranks of the knights of the shires. I am sure that it gave him as much pleasure as it gave to his friends on both sides of the Chamber.
Perhaps the most important challenges to the education system in the late 1980s and 1990s are the need to improve standards of achievement among all pupils of all abilities, to improve the quality and range of the curriculum and the effectiveness of its delivery, and to secure the best possible return from the resources that are found for education.
For many schools, internal changes in the organisation of classes or the distribution of teaching duties will be needed. Planning is called for and some hard decisions will need to be taken by local authorities everywhere. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has asked all local education authorities to examine how the education service can provide a more effective response to national and local needs and circumstances, and to undertake systematic reviews of their school provision, area by area.
Although financial considerations are important, above all, local education authorities must take full account of educational considerations when planning changes. New arrangements must offer an education better suited to the needs of pupils of all abilities than the ones that they replace. They must also reflect, wherever possible, parental preferences for schools of particular types. The viability of a school does not depend solely on the number of pupils. It depends on the age range and character of the school, its

ethos, the quality and balance of expertise of its teachers and its non-teacher support, links with neighbouring schools, the fitness for purpose of its building and the extent to which all those can be maintained.
That is the background against which the Rochdale LEA has examined school provision within the borough. Let me explain the standard set of procedures that come into play when a local education authority wishes to change the organisation or pattern of provision in its schools. Those procedures are laid down by sections 12 to 16 of the Education Act 1980.
Briefly, the requirements are that when a local education authority or, in certain circumstances, the providers of a voluntary school wish to establish, discontinue or alter the size or character of a school they must publish proposals explaining their intentions. During the two-month period following publication it is open to interested parties to submit objections to the proposals. If such objections are made, if the Secretary of State has given appropriate notice to the local education authority, or if the school concerned is a voluntary school, the proposals fall to the Secretary of State to decide and may not be implemented without his approval.
On 13 April this year the Rochdale education authority and the Manchester diocesan council for education published statutory proposals to replace the existing mixed pattern of primary, first, middle, secondary and upper schools in the borough with a system of primary and secondary schools, with provision for children aged 16 to 19 being made in a tertiary college, as the hon. Gentleman said. I understand that those proposals have attracted a number of objections, which the Rochdale authority will shortly be required to send to us, together with its comments on them.
When the Secretary of State is deciding proposals to reorganise schools, he is under a general duty to act fairly. In other words, he must judge each proposal or set of proposals on its merits, taking into account the arguments of those making the proposals and the views of those objecting to them.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is important for the Secretary of State to avoid pre-judging the issues where such proposals are concerned. He will not, therefore, expect me to say anything about the particular reorganisation that is the subject of this debate. I know he will accept my assurance that I have listened carefully to what has been said tonight and that his points will be taken into account, along with any other representations that we may receive before a decision is reached on these proposals.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would be prepared to meet deputations about the proposals. He knows that the answer is yes and that I shall be happy to meet deputations when dates and times can be arranged between us. I am conscious of the fact that I have met the hon. Gentleman many times and that our arrangements have always been worked out amicably. I thank him for the tenor and tone of the debate and for the way in which he put forward his arguments on behalf of his constituents, some of whom are much nearer to us than they might have been a little while ago.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Two o'clock.